In North Dakota, Flames of Wasted Natural Gas Light the Prairie

Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Thirty percent of the natural gas extracted in North Dakota is flared off, like this gas near Ray. More Photos »

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

Published: September 26, 2011

NEW TOWN, N.D. — Across western North Dakota, hundreds of fires rise above fields of wheat and sunflowers and bales of hay. At night, they illuminate the prairie skies like giant fireflies.       

They are not wildfires caused by lightning strikes or other acts of nature, but the deliberate burning of natural gas by oil companies rushing to extract oil from the Bakken shale field and take advantage of the high price of crude. The gas bubbles up alongside the far more valuable oil, and with less economic incentive to capture it, the drillers treat the gas as waste and simply burn it.

Every day, more than 100 million cubic feet of natural gas is flared this way — enough energy to heat half a million homes for a day.

The flared gas also spews at least two million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, as much as 384,000 cars or a medium-size coal-fired power plant would emit, alarming some environmentalists.

All told, 30 percent of the natural gas produced in North Dakota is burned as waste. No other major domestic oil field currently flares close to that much, though the practice is still common in countries like Russia, Nigeria and Iran.

With few government regulations that limit the flaring, more burning is also taking place in the Eagle Ford shale field in Texas, and some environmentalists and industry executives say that it could happen in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Ohio, too, as drilling expands in new fields there unlocked by techniques like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

“North Dakota is not as bad as Kazakhstan, but this is not what you would expect a civilized, efficient society to do: to flare off a perfectly good product just because it’s expensive to bring to market,” said Michael E. Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin.

 

Continue reading...

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

The burning of 30% of all natural gas produced is lunacy at best! We ask the Oil & Gas Industry to step down from their insolence! You are the plague of the Earth. Why must an industry use a death/benefit protocol to assert it's financial prowess?

Do you realize how much toxic air people are breathing because of inept business and lack of regulation? Sure you do, but you could care less if mother's have pregnancy issues, children develop neurological disorders, the list goes on and on, but as long as silver is lining your pockets, the 'death/benefit business model is working just fine.

 

   

Boulder County, CO Landowner Complaint - Health Concerns from Emissions and Surface Agreement Second Thoughts

It's been over one years since this complaint was issued and the people would like to know what has happened since that time.  Are the emissions coming from that well a health concern issue? Are their still emissions being released that could possibly be an issue as the general letter from Boulder County/Air Quality Board reportedly indicates? How is Mr. Steiner's health? There are quite a few questions one could ask from this story. Please read the original back and forth discourse below.

Please comment with your questions about this case.

Date Rec'd:	6/25/2010	Complaint taken by:	JIM PRECUP
DocNum:	200257667	API number:	05-013-06611
Complaint Type:

Complainant Information

Name:	Norm Steiner
Address:	, Co
Date Received:	6/25/2010
Connection to Incident:	Surface owner

Description of Complaint:

Operator:	ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC
Oper. No.	100185
Date of Incident:	6/25/2010
Type of Facility:	WELL
Well Name/No.
County Name:
Operator contact:
qtrqtr: NWNE section: 35 township: 2n range: 69w meridian: 1

Complaint Issue
Issue:	AIR QUALITY	Assigned To:	JIM PRECUP	Status:	In Process
Description:	Alex Fisher received a complaint from Norm Steiner regarding concerns he had about a four well pad scheduled to be drilled on the adjoining property west of his house. Alex refered the complaint to me.

Other Notifications
Date:	6/25/2010	Agency:	surface owner	Contact:	Norm Steiner
Response or Details
Talked with Mr. Steiner. He told me that Encana was going to drill some wells West of his property. He was concerned with the possibility of contamination from the heavy volatiles. He also said that there was gas leaking on the two wells already on his property. I told him that I would do an inspection and would like to meet with him on site. He told me that he could not be available until 6/23/2010. I then set an appointment for 8:00 a.m. on 6/23/2010.
Date:	6/25/2010	Agency:	Encana	Contact:	Micheal Coppersmith
Response or Details
I did an inspection on the wells associated with Mr. Norm Steiners property and found a small gas release at the surface/production casing hammer nut seal on the Deason GU 1, Oil saturated soil inside the battery berm, no sign on the Deason GU1 and no battery sign on the Deason 32-35. The horizontal separator needed paint. I noted that there were 6 wells staked to be drilled west of his property line. I also noted that the 6 wells were not observing the 150ft setback from Mr. Steiners property line.I contacted Encana and met with Mr. Coppersmith to discuss the release and wellsite problems. I looked in the Scoutcard and found the surface use agreement between Mr. Steiner and Encana. I noted that on the form 2 that there were COA's in violation with the permit. The surface had yet to be recovered, the separator had not been painted , there were no bushes planted around the battery site on the south and east, the surface use agreement was specific to a separator for only 2 wells. The emissions burner was functional and it appeared that the volatiles were being handled properly off of the battery tanks
Date:	6/25/2010	Agency:	surface owner	Contact:	Norm Steiner
Response or Details
I met with Mr. Steiner on the battery site on 6/23/2010. He asked about the gas release and I did a walk through with Mr. Steiner. He asked about the danger of the heavy volatiles to his health. I showed him how the system was designed to deal with the releases from the tanks. I asked him where he was getting his information. He showed me a general letter he received from Boulder County identifying it as a possible problem it was represented by the Air Quality Board.I asked him to fax or email it to me as he was unable to make a copy at his house. I told him that I was going to have to NOAV Encana due to COA's not being done in a timely manner. I showed him the prospective wells and he was aware that they did not meet minimum setbacks from his property line. He said that he had signed a release waiver. I told him that I had seen the property line letter addressing the Permit for the Deason 4-2-35. I asked him why if he was concerned with air quality issues he had released his right to the setback. He said that Encana told him that they could do it with or without his help, all they had to do was bond out. I told him that it was possible, that he could have contacted the COGCC and possibly had that inclued as a COA to the permit. I found out that Encana had also amended his surface agreement to add the additional wells to his tank battery. He said that Encana told him they would use large upright tanks and reduce his visibility to the mountains if he didnot cooperate. They also said that they could do this by bonding out. Mr. Steiner wanted me to assure him that there would be no problems with the volatiles if they added them to his battery site. He also asked me to make Encana give him a letter that there would not be any problems in regard to the volatiles affecting their health.I told him I could not make such assurances and I did not have the authority to force Encana to give him a letter assuring they would have no problems in that regard. I told him that the rules gave us some ability to deal with the issue should it occure but we couldnot even guarantee him that Encana would even own the property for the life of the well. He represented that he was having second thoughts about having signed the agreements. I told him I was relatively sure that nothing could be done at this time, but I offered to have him talk to someone in enforcement. He said he had to talk to his wife. I called him later that afternoon and asked him if he had talked to his wife. He said he had not. I told him I would not bring it up to enforcement unless he was sure he was serious about trying to remedy some of the concerns he had brougnt up. He asked me to wait until next week and he would call me and let me know if he wanted to stay as it was or talk to someone about how Encana had handled the information back to him. He has at this time not received his check from Encana for his surface agreement amendment and property line waiver. PRODUCTION DATA API #: 05-013-06611 Location: NWNE 35 2n 69w 6 Field: WATTENBERG Field Code: 90750 Facility Name: DEASON Facility #: 4-2-35 Operator Name: ENCANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC Operator #: 100185 Month Formation Sidetrack Well Status Days Prod Product GAS Water Disp. Code Prod Flared Used Shrinkage Sold BTU Jan J SAND 00 PR 31 Oil -> Gas -> 1 2,109 21 20 -1 1 2,109 50.9 1,306 2 P Jan NIOBRARA-CODELL 00 PR 31 Oil -> Gas -> 30 1,295 404 413 -1 20 1,295 50.6 1,306 49 P Feb NIOBRARA-CODELL 00 PR 28 Oil -> Gas -> 20 1,693 543 527 36 1,693 50.8 1,295 107 P Feb J SAND 00 PR 28 Oil -> Gas -> 1 1,710 17 17 1 1,710 50.8 1,295 3 P Mar J SAND 00 PR 31 Oil -> Gas -> 1 1,945 21 19 3 1,945 51.1 1,295 3 P Mar NIOBRARA-CODELL 00 PR 31 Oil -> Gas -> 36 1,552 336 324 -1 47 1,552 51.0 1,295 51 P Apr NIOBRARA-CODELL 00 PR 30 Oil -> Gas -> 47 1,311 305 323 29 1,311 50.7 1,295 50 P Apr J SAND 00 PR 30 Oil -> Gas -> 3 1,367 12 14 1 1,367 50.6 1,295 2 P May J SAND 00 PR 31 Oil -> Gas -> 1 1,150 12 11 -1 1 1,150 49.9 1,295 2 P May NIOBRARA-CODELL 00 PR 31 Oil -> Gas -> 29 1,122 204 207 26 1,122 49.9 1,295 28 P Jun NIOBRARA-CODELL 00 PR 30 Oil -> Gas -> 26 1,031 251 237 40 1,031 48.8 1,295 19 P Jun J SAND 00 PR 30 Oil -> Gas -> 1 953 10 9 2 953 48.8 1,295 1 P

STEINER'S SURFACE AGREEMENT(S) notice dates CLICK TO ENLARGE

Fracking Complaint of the Day - Fugitive Emissions?

Weld County Colorado Date Rec'd:	8/15/2011	Complaint taken by:	DEBBIE BALDWIN
DocNum:	200318191	API number:	05-123-31420
Complaint Type:

Complainant Information

Name:	Steve DeJong
Address:	Eric , 80516
Date Received:	8/15/2011
Connection to Incident:	land owner

Description of Complaint:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Operator:	NOBLE ENERGY INC
Oper. No.	100322
Date of Incident:	8/15/2011
Type of Facility:	WELL
Well Name/No.
County Name:
Operator contact:
qtrqtr: NWNW section: 13 township: 7N range: 64W meridian: 1

Complaint Issue
Issue:	ODOR	Assigned To:	DEBBIE BALDWIN	Status:	Resolved 8/15/2011
Description:	well was being followed back after fracing in preparation for killing the well and installing the pump. The odor made Mr. DeJong light headed and nauseated. at the time of the incident the wind was blowing from the west to the east. his house is approx 2,300 ft due east of the well site. Mr. DeJong was inquiring about the states requirements for emmissions from and regulation of this type of activity.
Resolution:	Debbie Baldwin contacted Curtis Rueter, Nobel Environmental manager and explained complaint and provided Mr. DeJong's contact information. Debbie Baldwin and Diana Burn contacted Mr. DeJong to explain that Noble's operations were in compliance with cogcc regulations and that the well should be back on line by tomorrow. This well is not normally vented or flared
Letter Sent?:	N	Report Links:

Other Notifications
Date:	8/15/2011	Agency:	Noble	Contact:	Curtis Rueter
Response or Details
Curtis Rueter will contact the operations people and investigate this incident. I suggested that in the future should operations like this be conducted again that Noble make arrangement to contact Mr. DeJong and inform him about the proposed work  -------------------------------------- There are no real meaningful regulations regarding toxic air emissions for the oil and gas industry, so it is no surprise that the oil company turned the switch back on to continue production. The oil and gas industry is EXEMPT from EPA laws designed to protect YOU! It's an unregulated industry that is forcing itself on the lives of the innocent.  The victims have no rights.  The victims are you. Fugitive emissions video. You be the judge please comment