should we drill under the river

I am and have been a large supporter of drilling and fracking. The benefits to landowners, states, the country, and our economy far outweigh the risks. Because of fracking this area has seen more jobs and improvement then I have ever seen. Wv and oh have had a depressed economically for quite some time and without drilling we would still be here. This country is closer to resource independence then we have ever been....once again because of drilling.

But I feel to many people rely on the river for numerous reasons but the most important...drinking water. I understand that the risks are extremely small but when it comes to the river we cannot fail. We need to leave the river alone. We do not need to resources under it and should not take a chance. Even a small one.

LEAVE THE RIVER ALONE.

Views: 784

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by bo boboski on October 27, 2014 at 9:13am

The river is what; 30 ft,. deep, maybe? the wells lateral is about 7000 ft.  I don't see the problem!

Permalink Reply by jason irvine on October 27, 2014 at 10:03am
I don't see why we need to take the chance. It isn't worth it.
Permalink Reply by David Perotto on October 27, 2014 at 11:16am

Jason,

I think your fear is unfounded. What exactly concerns you? As long as the well bore is set back far enough, the river is safe. If something is going to go wrong, it will be at the wellbore.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on October 27, 2014 at 12:12pm

Unless it blows out a brine well.

http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141025/GZ01/141029437/200407122

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Marcellus expert says more scrutiny needed of fracking near Marshall chemical plant

By Ken Ward Jr., Staff writer

One of the nation’s best-known experts on the Marcellus Shale concluded that more investigation is needed before a Houston firm is allowed to move forward with natural gas wells near the site of a “near-catastrophic” fracking incident at a Marshall County chemical plant.Penn State geologist Terry Engelder, who did groundbreaking work about the gas reserves available in the Marcellus formation, testified in a Pennsylvania case in which Axiall Corp. was trying to delay and force a more detailed review of its plans for hydraulic fracturing wells at Axiall’s manufacturing plant in Natrium.“There are certainly things that can be done to gather more information that would help in understanding,” Engelder testified during a June hearing in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. “One would hope that information would be gathered.”Engelder and another Axiall expert, petroleum engineer Brun Hilbert, testified concerns that Gastar’s wells could lead to a repeat of an incident last year that Axiall blames on high-pressure fracking fluids being used by another company, Triad Hunter, to release natural gas from the Marcellus Shale at a well site across the Ohio River.In court documents, Axiall says that increased underground pressure from the fracking at Triad Hunter traveled under the river and somehow made contact with brine wells Axiall uses to obtain saltwater, one of the key materials used in its manufacturing process. Axiall says those pressures led to a blowout in which one of its brine wells at its plant “began spewing flammable natural gas.”No injuries were reported, but parts of Axiall’s brine production were closed for more than six months for repairs and the company had to set up several large flares to burn off excess natural gas. Axiall was “fortunate to have been able to limit the environmental impact of the Triad Hunter incident and avoid bodily injury or loss of life due to a natural gas explosion or other disaster,” the company says in court records.Last week, Allegheny County Judge Christine Ward refused Axiall’s request for a preliminary injunction against Gastar.Gastar said it was pleased with the ruling, believes Axiall’s allegations in the case were without merit, and planned to move forward with its fracking “in the near future.” In a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Gastar said that leases adjacent to the Natrium plant account for nearly one-fifth of its total gas reserves.The judge’s decision dropped the issue squarely in the lap of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, which had already issued several permits for Gastar’s operations in the area and has several other permits pending. DEP met with Axiall and was considering options for adding some conditions to Gastar’s permits to try to prevent any problems.Public disclosure of the situation and contact from Axiall on the issue prompted Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin to schedule a meeting Oct. 23 with DEP Secretary Randy Huffman to find out more. Chris Stadelman, Tomblin’s communications director, declined to say if the governor shares Axiall’s concerns about Gastar’s planned operations, but said Tomblin “decided it was important enough to be briefed about.” “The DEP is responsible for permitting issues and will continue to monitor activity related to that site,” Stadelman said Friday.Details of the controversy emerged last week as Tomblin and the Commerce Department continue to review bids on the governor’s proposal to lease rights for private companies to drill and produce natural gas from state-owned reserves under portions of the Ohio River, including at two sites near the Natrium plant.Environmental groups oppose the idea, and have urged the governor to drop his proposals. Stadelman did not indicate that the Axiall situation had given the governor any second thoughts about the Ohio River leasing proposals, The Natrium plant leases with Gastar were agreed to by PPG Industries two years before PPG sold the facility to Axiall in January 2013. The plant’s operations date back to the 1940s, when the facility was opened to tap into a huge salt deposit located far beneath the surface. The plant uses salt mined from these subsurface deposits to produce chlorine, caustic soda and hydrogen, as well as hydrochloric acid and calcium hyperchloride.Hilbert, Axiall’s engineer, testified that the Hunter Triad incident “demonstrates the presence of a highly conductive zone in the Marcellus Shale that allowed frack fluid under very high pressure to travel through the Marcellus Shale from Triad Hunter’s wells, under the Ohio River” to the Natrium plant. This, Hilbert said, provided evidence of “a preexisting natural high conductivity path” that allowed for “communication between Triad Hunter’s natural gas wells and” the Natrium plant’s brine wells.Engelder testified that Gastar’s wells could pose a similar “risk” to the Natrium facility, and recommended a “first-class” three-dimensional seismic study be conducted to examine that possibility. Axiall wanted the judge to order such a study, but Gastar argued that “potential” or “possible” risks were not enough to warrant a “sweeping, mandatory injunction.”Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kward@wvgazette.com , 304-348-1702 or follow @kenwardjr on Twitter.

Permalink Reply by jason irvine on October 27, 2014 at 2:36pm
My concerns are anything that could go wrong. You can make up some far fetched idea of something that could go wrong and that is enough. All I'm saying is maybe we should leave the river alone. I think there is enough of everything that we can afford to leave the ohio river out of the picture.
Permalink Reply by craig on October 27, 2014 at 3:25pm

Unfortunately this accident had to happen. The best possible news from this is that the fracing fluids didn't make it UP to the river vertically, but went horizontal underneath. Doesn't this underscore the now seemingly fact that the frac fluids do in fact stay in the horizontal they are pumped into..... at least in this type of geology.

There are many things that could go wrong in life. One just needs to balance the risk with the rewards, which is a personal thing. 

The above incident could possibly happen anywhere you have fracing and a brine well in close approximation to each other I would think. The river just happened to be there. I'd say it would be prudent to not frac within xxx distance of a brine well or similar well regardless of a river/lake/etc. In fact I wonder just how far the horizontal was from the brine well and what was the depth of the brine well.

I'd say more geology needs done at the permit level.... and I'm not one who wants more regs and red tape from our "partner", the gov't.

Permalink Reply by st. croix on October 27, 2014 at 1:51pm
Don't worry about the the river, it is already polluted and I would even swim in it yet alone drink water from it.
Permalink Reply by Nancy LeNau on October 27, 2014 at 4:24pm

I am with Jason....  Why take the possible chance ?  NOT..... worth it.  The poor Ohio river has already had too much damage from us.  Ask the fish ?

Permalink Reply by Booger on October 28, 2014 at 3:03am

agree should leave the river alone.........except for loading and unloading barges with oil/gas and barging the liquids up and down the river and trucking liquids over the river and beside the river and utilizing any rail along the river........i think there is way more potential river damage from the above, then there is from drilling a well to a mile depth and turning it under the river.........the incident phillip cites has nothing to do with the river.......as craig says, the river just happened to be there (a mile above).......as david says, any problem will be at the surface drilling location - not on the surface where the bore crosses the river a mile or more below.

crossing a state line would be interesting - how the permitting and regulation would be handled.

Permalink Reply by Joe on October 28, 2014 at 5:39am

Sorry for getting off topic but who owns the rights under the river and gets paid for it?

On topic: Wouldn't this open the door for a frenzy of drilling under the rivers with who profiting? Also pulling drill rigs from drilling your property for as much as years.

If the government gets the money for drilling under the river how do you feel about letting them distribute it fairly? Or I say drill me first, let me distribute the money the way I see fit buying cars, tractors, college educations, spending the money locally. When that gas is all gone then drill the river, the parks and government land.

 By the way on the note of who best to distribute the profits I think it was a grave injustice to the people  and their heirs whose property was bought, taken by eminent domain, and any other way to get it for the Pittsburgh Airport . That gas money rightfully belongs to the previous owners and their heirs. Again who do you want distributing the money?

Most people can't hold onto a wind fall of money. Look at the lottery winners. They go broke. They spend the money into the local economy. At least the farmers usually by new trucks and tractors. Drill under the river and see how many new cars, trucks and tractors are sold.

Permalink Reply by craig on October 28, 2014 at 7:44am

I was told the Army Corp of Engineers control any drilling under the Ohio river, fwiw.

Permalink Reply by Joe on October 28, 2014 at 7:51am

But who owns the rights?

Who gets any bonus or royalty?

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service