|
|
Many farmers have long made more money from energy production and its ****ociated activity than from farming.Originally Posted by Steve O'Seinus
Not all fracing fluid recipes are the same. There can be big differences. Some do not include chemicals that would be harmful to water that’s already in the Salt Fork river.... where I have spent many days.
But certainly they should not be dumping it without state approval.
I would encourage you to find out and report them if necessary.
Yeah, report them to a state agency that will turn a blind eye.
Not from my personal observations.
Untrue. They'll likely have a field agent out there by the end of the day if you're talking about surface spilling/disposal.
False. The OCC, Texas Railroad Commission, et al, would be on them like a monkey on a cupcake.
The following users like this post: platypus
Mmmmm cupcakes....
It is always going to be hard for me to trust the rugulatory bodies to do their job adequately especially in this state when it comes to oil and gas. Sorry. Its too easy to bribe a turned eye. I also dont think we have a pro regulatory climate in this state anyway. Long and short of it is I dont trust big oil to have the publics best interest in mind and dont believe them when they say we do it cleanly and wont screw up the environment.
Serious question: Do you trust the federal government to do that?
No I dont. And that is a problem.
The following users like this post: OUMallen
Then your mind is made up. Which is fine.
But one thing to remember is these are all people. Pretty well educated people. Both in Oil & Gas and regulatory. They also live "on the land"....they recreate on and in the water, drink it, and on and on. You really think they don't give a **** about having as clean an enviroment as possible. Sure, regulators might at times "cozy" with industry and might let something slide. I'm not stupid and I've been in this business for 34 years now. That does happen. But most regulators want to do a good job. They want to advance in their fields of work, just like you. And me. I know I try to do things right and ethically. Most everyone I've known in this business is the same.
So we have a lot of people involved. They've created systems and processes to do the job. Most want to do a good job. Same with regulators. And we have the best science and technology available.
I fail to see a serious problem here.
The following users like this post: platypus
Could anyone see a future where a non government entity does the inspecting, and the government entity responds to the findings?
What would happen if the Sierra Club was in charge of inspections, for example...do you think that they would fabricate reports or just be more critical?
That's a pretty interesting question. I'm not sure of the answer. Bias would of course be kind of a BIG concern. We already have government regs, I don't see how more will help. And this regulation thing is expensive. How would the Sierra Club pay for it. Who would they hire? You pretty much need some petroleum engineers.
Just a couple of hundreds of reasons that more regulation is not a good answer. Regulations are in place to keep everyone safe.
You say they live "on the land" but I dont think they have pools of spent fracking liquid in their front yard. I also dont think they recreate or live anywhere near the drilling sites. I think there are definately some in the industry that would do anything to make the big money. I do not think everyone in the industry is this way, but enough are.
I don't want to see more regulation, I just want to make sure current regulations were followed. For the time being, I think that offenders could foot the bill for the inspections...there's already a pretty good nest egg from BP. Essentially, I would rather see the industry foot the bill rather than the taxpayer. As far as Bias, I think you want your inspecting arm to be as biased as possible, don't you?
You'd need a truly unbiased group--I don't know that Sierra is that group.
I can agree all the way to the last sentence. You can't make that claim about me, its not true anyway, but it does reveal something. Thanks for showing that to us.
I worked as an electrician in the commercial sector for years, and I can tell you that many inspections involved shooting the **** and signing papers with nary a look at the work or discussion of code. My crews always worked hard to exceed code, so maybe we just got the benefit of the doubt, if I were looking at it from a truly safety compliance point of view, though, I would want those guys to be in every ceiling and calling for us to open every wall plate. Bias was perhaps the wrong word to use...maybe meticulous and wanting every error to be on the side of compliance.
Lot's of industry does self monitoring and testing...tires for example...certain criteria must be met to ****ign those speed ratings on the sidewall...and all of that testing is done in house with no outside monitoring...you do the load and high speed testing on sets of design spec tires and send the data in to DOT...problems down the line and DOT will be in house verifying you data and looking at repeatability...DOT doesn't test ****...
That works up to a point. Today though we have people doing inspections that have to find something wrong or they can't justify their work. We run into it regularly.
I am sure someone will bring up the Firestone fiasco from a few years ago...
Those tires were produced to Ford specs...Ford was wanting tires to be as light as possible to help fuel mileage...the standards Ford supplied had no headroom over the DOT specs...not robust....after testing Goodyear decided to not bid on the contract...the vast majority of the tires Firestone produced were fine...but the tires at the extreme of the variation were questionable...add in a consumer running a tire at a low inflation pressure...or a consumer overloading a tire...both of which add to a tires heat history...and disaster was just around the corner...
I see where you are coming from, and perhaps that problem could be minimized by a third party, especially if their budget was related to fines produced...I'm just spitballing here really, I don't have the answers.
The following users like this post: oucub23
Truthland?
Not according to Matt Damond's fact based thriller, The China Syndrome 2013.
My experience with regulators is that they are, if anything, overzealous. But I hoenstly think the Oklahoma Corporation Commission largely does a good job.
I have no experience w/ oil & gas regulators but I deal with the ASME on a daily basis. My experience over the past decade is that they take their jobs very seriously.
I think some of the skepticism comes from the fact that the relationship is somewhat parasitic for these agencies. There would be no need to regulate if there were no drilling, hence there would be no regulatory body or inspectors. I think this mistrust is healthy & beneficial overall.
They definitely need to be adversarial in nature.
Thanks for the word I needed instead of biased yesterday.
Same for me. The Texas Railroad Commission likewise does a good job.
I can second this sentiment.
I third…
Years ago I use to run around with several young Railroad commission employees (petroleum engineers, geologist) who have now risen through the ranks. I know they took their responsibility seriously and did enforce the rules and laws that existed at that time.
I know you are in the industry but u are either new or ignorant
That's the point. Fracking didn't cause it. And rarely is gas migrating due to bad cement
Casing companies?
I'm guessing you work for an energy company and your job does not relate to anything on the operations side but they took you on a little field trip so now you think you know everything
Then stop using the products
1. Stop saying us.
2. The info is out the. The public would rather listen to uneducated news personnel than read a technical article
More than likely soil farming. It's a state permitted and approved process to dispose of drilling fluids. There are all types of rules and regulation that must be met.
The best part is- he's insulting people's knowledge with years in the industry. There are plenty of professions out there where you'd know the most about your own line of work. But on this board, oil and gas isn't one of them.
Instead of being a snarky butthole, The, you could be a little bit nicer and we'd all have pretty bad**** resources in each other. The O&G knowledge on this board is actually pretty substantial.
3 users like OUMallen's post: OU48A, QRISooner, ThievingMagpie
Lol more ignorance
That would cause issues IMO. Under the table deals etc
Can't we all just get along?
QRI or anyone else, please refresh my memory. Wasn't there a case this past year in which the railroad commission overrode federal regulators who had shut down a company's exploration in an area in Texas without sufficient cause?
That could not happen in our current system? You are far too trusting.
You may be thinking of a case in far southern Parker County (which is just north of me and west of Ft. Worth) involving a lawsuit by a landowner against Range Resources. Plaintiff alleged a Range Barnett shale well contaminated their drinking water with methane. The EPA at first agreed with plaintiff, but the RRC ruled for Range. There was never a shut down order against Range.
Since, the courts have ruled in favor of Range, who is now counter-suing the landowner.
Turns out it was all a set up by the landowner and the EPA really didn't know **** (I know that's shocking). They've backed off now too.
There was methane in the water well, but it came from an old improperly plugged shallow well. Not the newer Range much deeper Barnett well. The landowners apparently knew this but tried to go after the deep pockets. They even used an "environmental scientist" (really a quack) to lie on their behalf.
I hope Range takes them to the cleaners.
Didn't say it couldn't. But I've had dealings with EPA and occ.
I could see a "third party" coming along that wasn't really third party
That's the case, QRI - thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
