Why Redacting E-Mails Is a Bad Idea - NY Times Warned of a Fracking Bubble or Ponzi Scheme

Yesterday, the Public Editor for The New York Times, Arthur Brisbane, issued an article criticizing the Times for redacting in their reporting on the shale gas industry's so called "Ponzi schemes" to dupe investors. The New York Times national editors, Rick Berke and Adam Bryant, responded by explaining why the newspaper was forced to redact their the emails in their original story. 

ARTICLE SNIPPET
By ARTHUR S. BRISBANE
Published: July 30, 2011

"TWO weeks ago, I raised questions about a New York Times article that warned of a bubble or Ponzi scheme in the development of shale gas energy. Today I want to look closely at the front page shale gas article that appeared one day later, which relied heavily on documentation with sections blacked out to shield its anonymous provider."

The documents in the articles had been leaked to the Times from government sources seeking to remain confidential. The Times agreed to redact government employee names, however, the paper originally sought to publish in unredacted form. The Times held the story for a month while waiting for The EIA (Energy Info. Admin, a part of DOE) to comply with a request from Congress and multiple requests under FOIA by the Times. But The EIA stonewalled so the paper published the leaked version with redaction to protect sources. 

You can read the public editors column by clicking on the LINK below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/why-redacting-e-mails-is-a-bad-idea.html?_r=1

You can read the Times’ response to the public editor HERE or the link below.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/times-editors-respond-to-column-on-redactions/#more-1593


Please make comments ASAP if you believe that this type of investigative journalism is worthwhile so the NY Times will continue to report on this critical issue. Comments should be made in the comment section beneath the either of the articles linked above.

"They'll Pay, But They Won't Admit Responsibility"

An Inside Look at What Happens When Gas Drillers Are Exempt from Environmental Law

Rancher Chris Velasquez knows first hand what gas drilling has done to communities, and the land, water and wildlife of New Mexico.

ALTERNET.ORG

May 6, 2011 |

Rancher Chris Velasquez demonstrates the viscosity of fluid leaking from the end of a TEPPCO pipeline labeled "methane" and "produced water" at the Pump Canyon Compressor station near his home. Lack of fencing or other barriers makes such toxic materials available for wildlife and livestock to drink.

Photo Credit: Doug Peacock

BLANCO, New Mexico -- Chris Velasquez sees the impacts of gas development in the San Juan Basin of northern New Mexico through the eyes of a rancher, and those of a man whose roots in this country pre-date both the gas rigs and the arrival of Anglos.

He and his dad ran cattle, until recently, on a grazing allotment called the Rosa, rolling high desert lands punctuated by bluffs and arroyos, ringed by mesas, adjacent to the Carson National Forest on the east, the Southern Ute reservation to the north, and bordered on the west by Navajo Lake. In a way, it's what's left of Velasquez' ancestral homeland. "We used to live where the Pine River and the San Juan meet up here, then when they built the lake, it either was drown or move," he says. In 1962, the Bureau of Reclamation completed a dam stretching three-quarters of a mile across the San Juan River.

The idea was to control flooding and provide irrigation water for the Navajo tribe. It also displaced Velasquez' community. "All my ancestor's on my mom's side, well on my dad's side too, came from right up here," he says. "My grandpa and my grandma on my mom's side, they were the second farm below the dam. They got chased out too. From right here on, all the people who lived here -- they were all Spanish people -- relocated. Threw them to the four winds. Scattered them all over the place."

 

Continue reading...   "My youngest daughter would call them the murderers," he says.

ConocoPhillips to Begin Oil Exploration Near Metro Denver! AYFKM?

By Howard Pankratz
The Denver Post

Posted: 07/30/2011 01:00:00 AM MDT

ConocoPhillips will begin oil exploration in four metro-area counties in what an industry expert characterized as a major step in development of the oil-rich Niobrara formation under Colorado's plains.

Most of the 46,000 acres to be explored are adjacent to the north and east boundaries of the old Lowry bombing range in Arapahoe County.

"It is a big deal," said Marilee Utter, president of Denver-based Citiventure Associates.
Utter, a consultant to the Colorado Land Board, is developing a leasing plan so thousands of acres of the former bombing range owned by the board can be auctioned off for Niobrara exploration.

ConocoPhillips said it will begin oil exploration in Arapahoe, Adams, Elbert and Douglas counties "as soon as possible" as a result of an agreement to acquire leases from Lario Oil & Gas Co. Mike O'Shaughn- essy, president and chief executive of Lario, said 90 percent of the land is in Arapahoe County near the old bombing range. Not all of the acreage is contiguous. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

Utter said the acquisition is very important because it means serious exploration of the Niobrara is heading south from Weld County, where the majority of exploration has taken place. In addition, the size of the acreage is impressive, she said.

"It is a big parcel. It gives (ConocoPhillips) more flexibility. Picking up big chunks is valuable. It gives them control," Utter said

Continue reading this moronic idea...

Dear David Neslin,

Thank you for admitting you do not have many Oil & Gas inspectors. 

This is a clear picture of inept management and lack of operational environmental management that can become catastrophic to the people of  Denver metro and the surrounding environment(s). We both know that spill incidents occur at alarming rates across Colorado.

The difference is, you deny it and we, the people, do not.

Most oil and gas leaks never get reported because there is not an inspector out in the field to actually notice and report a leaking pipe, berm breach, ruptured pipes and list goes on and on.

Many leaks get reported days, weeks or even a month later. A large percentage of Oil and Gas Spill/Incidents occur far before any inspector gets around to visit the well site.  What does this do to the environment? One hell of a lot of damage, that's what.

On COGCC's FORM 19 the inspector lists: 'Estimated Spill Amount', 'Estimated Recovered.' How is this effective?  How does this guide you for remediation planning? Guess work doesnt cut it Mr. Neslin. There is also a 'Corrective Action' portion on the FORM 19 and we feel that the action should be applied to you.  You are liable for this complacency.

 

 

Can you tell me how many thousands of spill/incidents are 'estimated' in frac-fluid/produced water loss?  How deep does this toxic cocktail penetrate the ground? You sample areas around the site to determine TBEX analytical results weeks and even a month or more past the actual spill date. How effective is it? It's charlatan O&G procedural quackery.  How many unknown barrels of toxic spills have occured? Not even you know how much has been lost/spilled thus potentitally contaminating the ground water and surrounding environment. Great work David!

What will you do when spill/incidents occur in our local Denver area at the same rate as rural spills? How will you control fugitive toxic emissions as to not harm the public?  Will you place the blame on Arapahoe County?  They can't even control their own management to not allegedly  illegally discharge paint on the ground and it's only getting worse for them.  They have one more 'BIG EXPOSE' coming very soon! 

Mr. Neslin, WE implore you to take a step back and realize that you are a puppet being fed by the industry.  You have a good-faith obligation to the citizens of Colorado to protect it's natural resources and it's people from  industrial harm.  Do not allow this development near Metro Denver!

Please send Neslin an email with your thoughts: David.Neslin@state.co.us

Copy us at WTFrack.org@gmail.com and we will post your voice.

------------------------------

EPA Proposes Air Rules for the Oil and Gas Industry - Symphony of Destruction

EPA proposes air rules for the oil and gas industry July 28, 211 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a suite of highly cost-effective standards to reduce emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and air toxics from the oil and natural gas industry. The rules also would significantly reduce methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Continue reading...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO AIR REGULATIONS FOR THE OIL AND NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY

FACT SHEET

OVERVIEW OF ACTION

On July 28, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a suite of highly cost-effective regulations that would reduce harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry while allowing continued, responsible growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production.

The proposal is based on proven technology and best practices that the oil and gas industry is using in some states today. It includes the first federal air standards for wells that are hydraulically fractured, along with requirements for several other sources of pollution in the oil and gas industry that currently are not regulated at the federal level.

Today’s proposal includes four air regulations for the oil and natural gas industry: a new source performance standard for VOCs; a new source performance standard for sulfur dioxide; an air toxics standard for oil and natural gas production; and an air toxics standard for natural gas transmission and storage.

The proposal would cut smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions by nearly one-fourth across the oil and gas industry, including a nearly 95 percent reduction in VOCs emitted from new and modified hydraulically fractured gas wells. This significant reduction would be accomplished primarily through use of a proven technology to capture natural gas that currently escapes to the air. That gas would then be made available for sale.

The estimated revenues from selling the gas that currently goes to waste are significant – so much so that today’s proposed rule is anticipated to quickly result in a net savings of nearly $30 million annually, while significantly reducing pollution from this expanding industry.

The VOC emission reductions from wells, combined with reductions from storage tanks and other equipment, are expected to help reduce ozone levels in areas where oil and gas production occurs. In addition, the reductions would yield a significant environmental co-benefit by reducing methane emissions from new and modified wells. Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas – more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Oil and natural gas production and processing accounts for nearly 40 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, making the industry the nation’s single largest methane source.

The proposed changes also would reduce cancer risks from emissions of several air toxics such as benzene.

EPA estimates the following combined annual emission reductions when the proposed amendments are fully implemented:
o VOCs: 540,000 tons, an industry-wide reduction of 25 percent

o Methane – 3.4 million tons, which is equal to 65 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), a reduction of about 26 percent.

o Air Toxics –38,000 tons, a reduction of nearly 30 percent.

The proposed rules would apply to the more than 25,000 wells that are fractured and refractured each year, as well as to storage tanks and other pieces of equipment. As part of today’s proposal, EPA is seeking comment on several steps to reduce the compliance burdens of the rule to industry and to state, local and tribal air agencies.

Today’s proposal continues EPA’s efforts to support responsible oil and natural gas exploration and production that protects public health and the environment.

In June, the Agency signed a memorandum of understanding with the departments of Interior and Agriculture establishing a common process for the agencies to follow in analyzing the potential air quality impacts of proposed oil and gas activities on federally managed public lands. The collaborative approach in the agreement will provide increased certainty, clarity and transparency about requirements on public lands.

EPA will accept public comment on the proposed amendments for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Information on submitting written comments is included at the end of this fact sheet. The Agency also will hold three public hearings on the proposals in the Dallas, Denver, and Pittsburgh areas. Additional information on the hearings will be announced in a separate notice.

Continue reading...


 -------------------------


On July 20th  2011, we wrote an article titled: 'Children Forced to Breathe Toxic Chemical Emissions From Gas Wells?' It's not enough to say that serious oversight and complacency had taken place by drilling active Oil & Gas wells within close proximity of Elementary Schools.  Was it complacency, or was it simply that the industry was too drunk on Oil & Gas and drilled wherever, whenever and on top of whomever they desired with no scientifically effective oversight or Federal regulations in place to protect groundwater and humanity? 

It is our opinion that the industry will seek forgiveness at a later date and be subject to numerous class-action lawsuits that will be shadowed in cost comparison as to what was reaped in monetary gains from the unregulated practices in the Oil & Gas Industry. We don't think that's fair and just. 

The children of the future will look back on us and say: "Who the hell allowed this to happen?"

Was this cost/benefit, (aka -death/benefit) part of their business plan? Sure it was, and Cheney was the conductor in this 'Symphony of Destruction.'

---------------------------------

Lawmakers Call on EPA to Address Drilling Air Pollution, Laud Announcement of Updated Rules

Congressman Jared Polis

2nd District, Colorado | 501 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | polis.house.gov

Media Release: July 28, 2011 Contact: Chris Fitzgerald (Polis), 202-225-2161; Mike Morosi (Hinchey), 202-225-6335

 

WASHINGTON – Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today lauded the announcement of new drilling air pollution rules and called for tighter safeguards to protect public health. The new proposed rules announced today by the Environmental Protection Agency update federal limits on air pollution caused by oil and gas drilling, a growing problem throughout the country. The rapid expansion of shale gas drilling associated with hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has been accompanied by severe regional air quality problems and growing air related health concerns.

“Small town America shouldn’t have Los Angeles-quality air, but in areas where gas drilling is booming that’s exactly the case,” said Polis. “Until we can close industry exemptions and loopholes within the law, this overdue update to our clean air laws is welcome and desperately needed.”

"I applaud the EPA for making the right decision," said Hinchey. "Air pollution that results from gas drilling should not be exempt from baseline standards designed to protect public health and the environment. Families in New York and throughout the country shouldn't have to worry that their kids are breathing in toxic air polluted by a neighboring frack drilling operation. This is one step of many that must be taken to help curtail the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing."

With today’s news, Polis, Hinchey and fourteen of their House colleagues also called on the EPA to add hydrogen sulfide, known popularly as “poison gas,” to the list of hazardous air pollutants within the Clean Air Act. This move is being considered by the EPA, but was not included in this proposal. Polis and Hinchey introduced the BREATHE Act, (Bringing Reductions to Energy’s Airborne Toxic Health Effects Act, H.R. 1204), which reverses gas drilling exemptions from the Clean Air Act, and adds hydrogen sulfide as a hazardous air pollutant.

Information on the EPA’s Proposed Update is here.

Information on the BREATHE Act can be found here.

Member Letter to EPA can be found here. Or you can view it below.

-------------------------

Our masks are off to Rep. Jared Polis! We, the people, that wish to breathe and survive on clean, air applaud you and your co-signers commitment to addressing hydrogen sulfide in H.R. 1204, the BREATHE (Bringing Reductions to Energy's Airborne Toxic Health Effects) Act.

The addition of hydrogen sulfide as a regulated hazardous air pollutant under subsection 112(b)(1) is a critical first step in this unregulated 'fracking' world. We understand that you have sent this follow-up letter in regards to an earlier petition and we believe that you will not give up.  It is up to EPA Administrator Jackson to respond to your communications in a manner that is both effective and timely.

-------------------------



Hydrogen sulfide (British English: hydrogen sulphide) is the chemical compound with the formula H₂S. It is a colorless, very poisonous, flammable gas with the characteristic foul odor of rotten eggs at concentrations up to 100 parts per million. It often results from the bacterial breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen, such as in swamps and sewers; this process is commonly known as anaerobic digestion. It also occurs in volcanic gases, natural gas, and some well waters. The human body produces small amounts of H₂S and uses it as a signaling molecule. Source: Wikipedia

Anti-fracking Hip Hop Video Launched

Sapa | 28 July, 2011 15:40
Timeslive.co

A typical Karoo windmill. File picture
Image by: Ivor Markman / The Herald

Titled Frackattack, an allusion to the hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" done to extract such gas, the lyrics and song -- performed in the Cape Afrikaans vernacular -- are by local singer-songwriter Quintin Goliath, better known as Jitsvinger.

"Ons beter ytstiek en opskud, voor 'ie kinders byrie huis siek en vrot sit, van 'ie benzene, formaldehyde en diesmeer, weggestiek innie water supply deur 'ie pompe [We better stand up and shake our heads, before our children are sick at home, from benzene, formaldehyde and more, hidden in the water supply by the pumps]," is one of the song's warning messages.
It also refers to those companies applying to extract gas in the Karoo as "vultures" performing "sly tricks". Further, it labels hydraulic fracturing as "stupid", and calls on people to oppose and "use your right to fight" it.

The music video was produced and released by the Treasure Karoo Action Group (TKAG) as part of their campaign to create awareness about why hydraulic fracturing should not be allowed in South Africa.

Continue reading...







...........................................................................................................

U.S. Department of Energy Prepares to Take the Floor in the Nation's 'Fracking' Debate

By JOEL KIRKLAND of CLIMATEWIRE
Published: July 26, 2011   
NTTIMES

When talking about his department's role in steering U.S. energy policy, Energy Secretary Steven Chu likes to recall its role in last year's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"It's true that we had no jurisdictional or regulatory authority in the deepwater spill," Chu said in an interview with ClimateWire late last week. "We played a different role. We helped stop the leak."  Chu's behind-the-scenes war room is widely credited with bringing order to chaos in the aftermath of the BP PLC Macondo blowout in April 2010. His team pinned down the oil's flow rate, and it was the joint effort of government scientists and BP engineers that finally stanched the three-month-long seafloor oil gusher.       

In an interview, Chu suggested his department will try to play a similar role in sorting out the entangled mess of misinformation and spin about the environmental impacts of gas drilling.
The top two U.S. gas producers, Chesapeake Energy and Exxon Mobil Corp., are expected to drill tens of thousands of wells through 2020, and plenty of other companies remain lined up behind them despite a prolonged slump in natural gas prices.

The result is nothing short of industrialization in rural areas outside of some of the nation's largest cities.

"The charge from the president was very clear," Chu noted. "We need to develop this, but we need to develop it in an environmentally responsible way."       

Continue reading...

-------------------------

"States and U.S. EPA have been searching for the right balance that allows companies to expand their drilling operations, ensuring a reliable source of energy, while at the same time government agencies craft a policy that heeds public concern about contaminating water aquifers, toxic waste pits and air pollution."

Why not collaborate your vanity calculator PhDs to kick around reliable methods of discovering and utilizing our natural, renewable resources? Notice we said, 'OUR' natural renewable resources... Maybe your 'Curriculum of Greed' left that chapter out of your books intentionally.

Ever think of constructing a 'reliable' policy? One that is designed to protect our natural resource interests and not destroy them forever? Of course not. Renewable energy is the 'Anti-Christ' to  Capitalism. Why would 'Big Industry' remove silver from its pockets? They wouldn't. That would be contrary to maintaining the Oligarchy that currently exists today.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía^[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, corporate, or military control. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words "ὀλίγος" (olígos), "a few"^[2] and the verb "ἄρχω" (archo), "to rule, to govern, to command".^[3] Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next.

------------------------

Environmental Groups Sue City Authority Over 'Fracking' Water

July 19, 2011


Two environmental groups have gone ahead with their threat to sue the city's sewage treatment authority over its acceptance of wastewater from so-called "fracking" operations.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court in Pittsburgh, Clean Water Action and Three Rivers Waterkeeper demand an immediate injunction to force the Municipal Authority of the City of McKeesport to stop accepting water from natural gas drilling companies.

But Mayor Regis McLaughlin, who chairs the sewerage authority board, says the plant hasn't taken any fracking water since the state on April 19 asked McKeesport's authority and 14 others to stop the practice.

McLaughlin said a request for an injunction is "unnecessary."

"I think they're just trying to get us to say on the record that we're not taking any more fracking water --- and we're not," he told the Almanac.

Filed on behalf of three Western Pennsylvania residents, the lawsuit alleges that the authority's plant in lower 10th Ward can't adequately remove hazardous chemicals and heavy metals from "fracking" water.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, those chemicals and other so-called "total dissolved solids" from fracking water are being discharged, along with treated sewage, into the Monongahela River in violation of the federal Clean Water Act and the state's Clean Streams Law.

"Some sewage plants have formally decided to stop taking any oil and gas wastewater," said Myron Arnowitt, state director for Clean Water Action, a national non-profit based in Washington, D.C. "However, McKeesport has taken no such action. With the state failing to take any mandatory action to address this threat to our rivers, we can no longer wait."

In March, Clean Water Action and Three Rivers Waterkeeper warned two sewerage authorities --- McKeesport's and one in Greene County --- that they were considering a federal lawsuit over what they called "significant and ongoing violations" of environmental laws.

TWO PAGES OF NOTICE OF INTENT

 CLICK IMAGE TO READ ENTIRE NOTICE OF INTENT 

 

Continue reading...




.....

A Former Energy Company Lawyer Now Fights for the Other Side

News - From the July 25, 2011 issueby April Reese

In the 1990s, oil and gas was booming, and industry attorney Lance Astrella had it all: a thriving practice, a plump paycheck and a reputation as one of the best in the business. Then one night, disturbed by rumors of drillers trashing private property, he attended a community meeting in Denver. One by one, people stood up and told heartbreaking tales of contaminated land and respiratory and other health problems, all of which they blamed on the very industry he represented.

Around the same time, Astrella noticed another distressing trend: Oil and gas companies were ignoring new technologies that could lessen their environmental impacts. He had been sure, for example, that an efficient drilling system that didn't require open waste fluid pits -- which can spill harmful chemicals into the air and water -- would become the norm. It didn't. Even when such practices saved money, says Astrella, many companies avoided them out of the fear that voluntarily embracing greener methods would increase the likelihood of stricter regulations.

So Astrella defected. "I think when you get older, you become more concerned with what's going to affect the world in the long term," he says. He believed that win-win solutions were out there, and he intended to push companies to use them.


Continue reading...



-----------------------

Lance Astrella concentrates his practice in the area of energy and environmental matters. Mr. Astrella has been a member of the State Bars of Colorado and California since 1974. He received his bachelor’s degrees in chemistry and economics from California State University at Chico, a master’s degree in economics from the University of California at Davis, and his doctorate of jurisprudence degree from the University of the Pacific– McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. Mr. Astrella is a frequent speaker on energy and related environmental matters and he is often associated as counsel by other law firms which seek his expertise. He was named as one of Colorado’s “Super Lawyers” in 2007.

Astrella Law P.C.1801 Broadway, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: 303-292-9021
Fax: 303-296-6347

-----------------------

WTFrack.org

3 Injured in ND Natural Gas Well Explosion - Two Critically Injured Men Were Flown to a Burn Center

Associated Press
By JAMES MacPHERSON , 07.25.11, 12:06 PM EDT


BISMARCK, N.D. -- Natural gas ignited during drilling operations at an oil well in western North Dakota, starting a fire that severely burned two men, injured another and will likely burn for at least a week before it's brought under control, the state's top oil regulator said Monday.



Lynn Helms, the director of the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the fire started Sunday at the site near Beach. The drill rig toppled during the blaze, and oil, gas and debris were still burning Monday, he said. 

"They had just finished their drilling operation and it caught fire," Helms said.

Like many oil-producing states, North Dakota has no specialized equipment to battle oil well fires. Because of the costs involved, the state - despite its booming oil patch - doesn't require, it and thus the companies are unwilling to invest in expensive equipment. Helms has said state officials were going to discuss the issue, but no talks have yet been held.

Image from Drilling Ahead

"This may take most if not all of this week to put out," he said.

The two critically injured men were flown to a burn center in the Minneapolis area, Helms said. A third man suffered minor injuries.

Continue reading...

..............................

Oil & Gas Spill Of the Day +/- 210,000 Gallons of Produced Water - Arapahoe County Colorado

RENEGADE OIL & GAS COMPANY LLC 

This post is a very comprehensive look into the history of one company's well site and its track record.  It appears that a large discharge of produced water occurred in late 2005. Was this spill a concern? It is 'estimated' that +/- 5,000 barrels of produced water discharged on the ground surface and into Cottonwood Creek. According to COGCC documents, one barrel equals 42 US gallons.  Five thousand barrels equates to 210,000 gallons of produced water that was reportedly spilled into Cottonwood Creek.  Was this company fined? Why has this company had so many unsatisfactory inspections/violations and is still being allowed to manage an active well?  Should they be fined? Should they be shut down for having so many violations? 

Do all companies get 'breaks' for their violations? Are O&G violation rules different if a well is located on BLM land? Where did the produced water go? Does the Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 apply?

Click 'Read More' at the bottom of this post to view images and documents.

-------------------------

***

Date Rec'd:	12/21/2005	Report taken by:	BOB CHESSON
DocNum:	1433324	API number:	05-005 -06522	Facility ID:	204437

Operator Information

Operator:	RENEGADE OIL & GAS COMPANY LLC	Oper. No.	74165
Address:	P O BOX 460413 ATTN: EDWARD INGVE AURORA , CO 80046-0413
Phone:	(303 )680-4725	Fax:	(303 )680-4907
Operator Contact:	JB CONDILL

Description of Spill:

Date of Incident:	12/1/2005
Type of Facility:	WELL
Well Name/No.	STATE 2	Fac. Name/No.
County Name:	ARAPAHOE
qtrqtr: NESW section: 36 township: 4S range: 58W meridian: 6

Volumes spilled and recovered (bbls)
Oil spilled: 0	Recvrd: 0
Water spilled:	Recvrd: 0
Other spilled:	Recved:
GW Impact? N     Surface water impact? Y     Contained within berm? N
Area and vertical extent of spill: 20-FT X 800 -FT
Current land use: RANGELAND
Weather conditions:
Soil/Geology description
Distance in feet to nearest surface water:
Depth to shallowest GW:
Wetlands:	Buildings:
Livestock:	Water Wells:
Cause of spill:
EQUIPMENT FAILURE
Immediate Response:
BACKHOE PLUGGED HOLE IN BERM AND REINFORCED BERM
Emergency Pits:
NONE
How extent determined:
VISUAL
Further Remediation
REMEDIATION UNDERWAY.
Prevent Problem:
REVIEW OF ALL COMPANY POLICIES WITH EMPLOYEES.
Detailed Description:
INSPECTION BY COGCC STAFF IN RESPONSE TO SURFACE OWNERS CONCERN IDENTIFIED A BREACH IN THE PRODUCED WATER PIT ALLOWING PIT TO DISCHARGE TO DRAINAGE OF COTTONWOOD CREEK AT A RATE OF APPROX. 3 GPM. RELEASE ONGOING FOR SOME TIME SO ESTIMATES OF RELEASE ARE VERY APPROXIMATE (5,000 BBLS (?).)

 

Field Visit/Follow Up
Name	Phone	Date
No Field Visit data found.

 

<>

SPILL IS REMEDIATION NO 3588.

Fracking Con: EPA Should Put a Hold on Fracking for Natural Gas

First published Jul 22 2011 01:01AM
                    

LOS ANGELES — On May 24, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress, saying, “I am not aware of any proven case where the ‘fracking’ process itself has affected water, although there are investigations ongoing.”

It was a classic case of non-denial denial by a federal agency enjoying observer status courtesy of a law assigning natural gas drilling oversight to the states.

Jackson wasn’t saying there have been no cases of ground water contamination from this controversial new mining technology; she was just saying she wasn’t “aware” of a “proven” one.

So why have New Jersey, North Carolina and New York, the cities of Buffalo and Pittsburgh, the Canadian province of Quebec and all of France banned or issued moratoriums on fracking?

With fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, a well is drilled thousands of feet deep into rock. Then millions of gallons of water, mixed with sand and toxic chemicals — including asbenzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene and formaldehyde — are blasted into the shale, fracturing it and releasing the natural gas.

Suddenly, the inaccessible is accessible, and the gas rush is on with tens of thousands of new wells popping up in Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Texas, West Virginia, Utah and Wyoming, and residents in those states reaping lucrative leases.

And why not? Natural gas burns cleaner than oil or coal, it’s cheaper than foreign oil and it creates jobs. That’s what industry is pitching, and it’s what Lisa Jackson pitched to Congress. And it’s probably safer than nuclear energy.

Or is it?

Continue Reading...

-------------------------

It's all about stalling.  They must stall as long as possible while they scramble to find remedies for an unsound method called 'hydraulic fracturing.' The longer they stall, the more revenue the Oil & Gas industry makes while more and more innocent citizens become victims from fracking crimes all across the country. It is criminal.

Hundreds more cases of soil, water, air and other types of contamination will surface. Many more people will be paid off. Many more humans and animals will die. Ecosystems will be impacted so negatively that they may never recover. These crimes go on and on while they, the ones with a vested interest, stall and make money. I am starting to think these processes are un-American. Well ok, they are, and those conducting this toxic orchestra are criminals.

------------------------

Fracking: Monterey shale exploration draws protest

July 19, 2011
LA TIMES




Environmental groups filed a formal protest this week with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management calling for a halt to the leasing of 2,600-acres in California's Fresno and Monterey counties for oil and gas shale exploration. They said future drilling would likely involve high-pressure hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a new drilling method linked to water contamination in other parts of the country.

“It seemed to us the BLM was lowballing these areas to sale given current economic conditions,” said Matt Vespa, an attorney at the Center of Biological Diversity.

The BLM’s environmental assessment failed to “take a hard look at the environmental consequences” of fracking. The assessment used historical data from the past 20 years that is not up to date on the new process, Vespa said.

The shale is near the San Antonio reservoir watershed and the area is home to threatened wildlife, the San Joaquin kit fox and blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

Besides the Center for Biological Diversity, the formal protest was signed by the Sierra Club and Los Padres ForestWatch. The coalition is requesting a thorough review of potential effects of fracking and proposed alternatives. It is asking the BLM to cancel the sale scheduled for September, when interested oil companies can bid on the land.

David Christy, spokesman for the BLM, said the department is reviewing the formal protest and has no immediate comment.

Tupper Hull, spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Assn., said people are misinformed about fracking in California. "Hydrualic fracking in California is quite different from other practices," Hull said, pointing out that companies drill for gas in the Marcellus shale, on the East Coast, whereas West Coast operations drill for crude oil.

"Natural gas generated in the Marcellus shale region involves large operations," Hull said. "In California they're smaller, single operations, they don't involve enormous amounts of water, they're not ongoing, and often times the wells are only used once." [Clarification July 21 10:44 a.m. : Hull was not referring to individual wells but to the hydraulic fracturing operation, which only occurs once.]

Environmental groups say fracking, which involves injecting rock formations with high-pressure water, sand and chemicals to release tightly-packed hydrocarbons, can result in the leaking of toxic fluids and methane into groundwater, as well as above-ground wastewater spills. The airborne release of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, is a major concern with fracking.

 

Continue Reading...

 

 

-- Ashlie Rodriguez
Photos:A natural gas well in Wyoming, where Halliburton has used hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas. Credit: Anacleto Rapping/Los Angeles Times.

Class-Action Suit Filed Over Battlement Mesa Natural Gas Drilling

By Dennis Webb
Thursday, July 21, 2011


A New York City law firm that achieved a lawsuit settlement for more than $800 million for Ground Zero responders has proceeded with a class-action lawsuit against Antero Resources regarding natural gas development in the Battlement Mesa area.

Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP and Aspen-based Thomas/Genshaft LLP filed the suit in Denver District Court Wednesday. It names as plaintiffs Battlement Mesa residents Garry and Bettie Evenson, Garland and Leola White, Joanne Mayo, and Sally Bedford, but says it is seeking class-action status for more than 1,000 property owners and 5,000 past and present residents of the community.

It contends that residents already have suffered health impacts from Antero’s gas development at a well pad near the community, and stand to endure further environmental effects and loss of property value because of the company’s plans to drill up to 200 wells within Battlement Mesa.

The suit seeks a jury trial and payment for loss of property value, health monitoring for residents, and other costs.

Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik negotiated the Ground Zero settlement on behalf of more than 10,000 emergency workers who were exposed to toxic dust when responding to the 2001 World Trade Center attack. It says it currently is representing people affected by natural gas development throughout the country.

Oil & Gas Spill of the Day - Garfield County 2BBLS (>82 Gallons Reportedly Not Recovered)

ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC RECEIVES THE SPILL OF THE DAY SPOT.

Date Rec'd:	7/19/2011	Report taken by:	CHRIS CANFIELD
DocNum:	2215062	API number:	05-045 -10553	Facility ID:	276924

Operator Information

Operator:	ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC	Oper. No.	100185
Address:	370 17TH ST STE 1700 ATTN: DIANE BILESZNER DENVER , CO 80202-5632
Phone:	(303 )623-2300	Fax:	(303 )623-2400
Operator Contact:	DAN PROKOP

Description of Spill:

Date of Incident:	7/15/2011
Type of Facility:	WELL
Well Name/No.	N.PARACHUTE WF06D J22 596	Fac. Name/No.
County Name:	GARFIELD
qtrqtr: NWSE section: 22 township: 5S range: 96W meridian: 6

Volumes spilled and recovered (bbls)
Oil spilled:	Recvrd:
Water spilled: 5	Recvrd: 3  *(that leaves 2 bbls NOT RECOVERED) 1 BBL = 42 GALLONS according to COGCC
Other spilled:	Recved:
GW Impact? N Surface water impact? N Contained within berm? Y
Area and vertical extent of spill: 200-SQ FT X -
Current land use: RANGELAND
Weather conditions: CLEAR, SUNNY
Soil/Geology description NIHILL CHANNERY LOAM, 6-25% SLOPES
Distance in feet to nearest surface water: 250
Depth to shallowest GW: 15
Wetlands:	Buildings:
Livestock:	Water Wells:
Cause of spill:
EQUIPMENT FAILURE
Immediate Response:
PUMP WAS IMMEDIATELY SHUT DOWN BY PERSONNEL ON LOCATION. A WATER TRUCK WAS CALLED OUT TO REMOVE PORTION OF THE RELEASE WHICH WAS CAUGHT WITHIN PORTABLE POP UP CONTAINMENTS SURROUNDING THE EQUIPMENT AND THE ADJACENT WORKING SURFACE.
Emergency Pits:
NO EMERGENCY PITS WERE CONSTRUCTED.
How extent determined:
THE REPORTED VOLUME WAS ESTIMATED BY LOOKING AT THE VOLUME CAPTURED AND REMOVED FROM SECONDARY CONTAINMENT AND COMPAIRED WITH THAT WHICH WAS REMAINING ON THE WORKING SURFACE. THE LATERAL EXTENT OF IMPACT WAS VISUALLY ESTIMATED.
Further Remediation
DURING INTERIM RECLAMATION THE WORKING SURFACE WILL BE REMOVED AND STOCKPILED TO ALLOW FOR SUBSURFACE REGRADING AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE REDUCED INTERIM PAD FOOTPRINT. IF ELEVATED SALT LEVELS ARE PRESENT, AS A RESULT OF THIS INCIDENT, THOSE LEVELS WOULD BE REDUCED THROUGH BLENDING DURING REMOVAL, STOCKPILING, AND REAPPLICATION OF THE MATERIAL TO THE RESTRICTED WORKING SURFACE.
Prevent Problem:
THE FRAC PUMP IN QUESTION WAS TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE FOR REPAIR, REMAINING FRAC PUPMPS BEING UTILIZED ON LOCATION ARE TO BE ROTATED OUT, INSPECTED AND RE-WELDED ALONG THE MANIFOLD END CAPS IF NEEDED PRIOR TO BEING RETURNED TO SERVICE.
Detailed Description:
WHILE CONDUCTING FRAC OPERATIONS ON THE J22 PAD, AN END CAP WELD LOCATED ON THE FRAC PUMP`S LOW SUCTION MANIFOLD FAILED AT ~3:15 PM ON 7/15/11 ALLOWING FOR THE RELEASE TO OCCUR.

-------------------------

Simple math tells me that *2 BBLS, or TWO 42 gallon drums, or 84 gallons of 'toxic' produced water were not recovered from the spill.  Now looking at the information that was provided by the person who took the report, an un-named Encana employee, or land owner, I see that the amount that was reported was purely based on guess work.  This then leads me to conclude that the amount of  'toxic' produced water listed on the FORM 19 (Spill/Incident Report) is inaccurate and not scientific thus not lending credibility to any realized reclamation, if you 'guess' one is necessary.

Let's run a complimentary guess for Encana and the COGCC and say that 10 BBLS of 'toxic' water were released but only 3 BBLS were recovered. That would leave 294 gallons of 'toxic' water un-recovered.   If you've got a scientific explanation for 'guessing', I'd like to hear about it to see how it fits in with the scientific community. Visual estimations are not accurate.  It's like a policeman stopping you for speeding and guessing how fast you were going with no factual recording of it.  I am amazed how simple technologies are not employed in the Oi l & Gas Industry.

What chemical 'materials' are being used during the 'blending' process? BTW, where did the recovered 'toxic' water go?

I 'guess' I'll conclude here.

-------------------------