The FW Weekly has all the details. LINK
I have not seen the bill yet. I hope it prohibits radioactive tracers.
UPDATE:
Here is a link to SB 772
The bill does not specifically call for non-toxic tracers and does not specifically address radioactive materials. But, there is a clause requiring the commission to make sure the tracer will not endanger public health.
(2) the commission has determined that the use of the tracer substance in a hydraulic fracturing treatment operation will not endanger the public health.
It’s a moot point anyway because the Big Gas Mafia has no intention of allowing this bill to pass.
And the winning comment is…
zoe said…
Jim, the General Manager of Bartonville Water Supply, asked XTO to put a dye tracer in the water when they fracked Ginger Hackel.
Guess what they said?
“No”
At that point the Town should have said, “NO”.
Gracie Engen, Water Board and Bartonville Town Council wants Gulftex to buy insurance to protect the water. She asked the Gulftex Project Manager if they could do such a thing.
Gulftex response was rather blundered, no one is really sure if such a thing exists.
I have news for you. The only insurance right now for not contaminating the water:
Not Drilling.
About Sharon Wilson
Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.
- Web |
- More Posts(5121)
Since it's perfectly safe, why would the gas industry oppose this? In fact they should champion it, because it will only support what we know, that it's perfectly safe? Right?
Reading random parts of Texas Administrative Code, stumbled upon this interesting tidbit about disposal wells,
"Saltwater or other oil and gas waste, as that term is defined in the Texas Water Code, Chapter 27, may be disposed of, upon application to and approval by the commission, by injection into nonproducing zones of oil, gas, or geothermal resources bearing formations that contain water mineralized by processes of nature to such a degree that the water is unfit for domestic, stock, irrigation, or other general uses."
Soooo therefore if you can prove that a disposal well is near any form of drinkable water by the TRC's own administrative code it shouldn't be allowed? This makes me think of a disposal well I heard about being planned off 1171 just outside of the city limits of Flower Mound. It would be very close to Lake Grapevine.
Davis' bill is online (SB 722). Unfortunately, radioisotopes seem to be permitted. Sorry for the awkward link:
82R4738 JXC-D
By: Davis S.B. No. 772
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the use of a tracer substance in performing a hydraulic
fracturing treatment operation.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter B, Chapter 91, Natural Resources
Code, is amended by adding Section 91.021 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.021. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID TRACER. (a) In
this section, "hydraulic fracturing treatment" means the
stimulation of a well by the application of a base stimulation fluid
containing a proppant with force in order to create artificial
fractures in a formation for the purpose of improving the well's
capacity to produce hydrocarbons.
(b) The commission shall adopt rules requiring a person who
performs a hydraulic fracturing treatment operation on a well to
include a tracer substance in the base stimulation fluid used to
perform the operation.
(c) Rules adopted under this section may specify the type of
tracer substance a person is required to use in performing a
hydraulic fracturing treatment operation, such as an isotope tracer
or a color tracer, provided that:
(1) the tracer substance is traceable to a specific
person after the tracer substance is used in a hydraulic fracturing
treatment operation; and
(2) the commission has determined that the use of the
tracer substance in a hydraulic fracturing treatment operation will
not endanger the public health.
SECTION 2. The Railroad Commission of Texas shall adopt
rules under Section 91.021, Natural Resources Code, as added by
this Act, not later than February 1, 2012.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/DocViewer.aspx?K2DocKey=odbc%3a%2f%2fTLO%2fTLO.dbo.vwCurrBillDocs%2f82%2fR%2fS%2fB%2f00772%2f1%2fB%40TloCurrBillDocs&QueryText=&HighlightType=1
Jim, the General Manager of Bartonville Water Supply, asked XTO to put a dye tracer in the water when they fracked Ginger Hackel.
Guess what they said?
"No"
At that point the Town should have said, "NO".
Gracie Engen, Water Board and Bartonville Town Council wants Gulftex to buy insurance to protect the water. She asked the Gulftex Project Manager if they could do such a thing.
Gulftex response was rather blundered, no one is really sure if such a thing exists.
I have news for you. The only insurance right now for not contaminating the water:
Not Drilling.
And who would monitor the results? Gas inspectors who play golf with the O&G industry? If the bill passes, I'm sure they'll make sure it all works perfectly.
Gee whiz W. Neighbor. You've become such a cynic.
You're right, Sharon. I've been teetering and I guess somewhere between Rule 37 and Rule 39 I fell into the sludge pit.
Oh, look! There's a brand NEW! E-Mail Service for the RRC Rules. How wonderful is that!
"Rule" 37 and "Rule" 39 is really a misnomer, they are more like suggestions or nice-to-have's, but rules, I think not. In fact, I don't think the RRC has any rules except one, bend over as far as you can for industry.
As was noted above, if pollution of ground water is impossible, as the industry says over and over again, they should be front and center in SUPPORTING putting radioisotopes in fracking fluids to so they can be traced.
The ONLY reason I can think of why they may be opposed is that it's not as impossible as they've been leading us to believe and they have been COUNTING on always being able to obfuscate the groundwater pollution issue every time it comes up.