Wise County residents defeat saltwater well, for now

A group of Wise County residents has won a round against the natural gas industry and the Texas Railroad Commission in a dispute over a saltwater disposal well.

.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the Railroad Commission didn’t take the group’s concerns into consideration when it granted a permit for a commercial saltwater disposal well. The group, Texas Citizens for a Safe Future and Clean Water, had tried to stop the Railroad Commission from issuing a permit for a commercial saltwater disposal well in rural Wise County.

.

But the railroad commission granted the permit, saying it was in the public interest because the well would help increase the production of oil and gas. The appeals court said that interpretation of “public interest” was too narrow, and that the commission should have considered the impact of traffic and environmental problems on surrounding residents.

.

The court sent the case back to the railroad commission, so the commission could still grant the permit.

But the case is still “a very important precedent,” said Jim Popp, president of the group, “We’ve said all along, when the Railroad Commission says ‘greater pub interest,’ all they’re saying is oil and gas, it has nothing to do with the greater public good.”

Read the appeals court decision here.

-- Mike

Comments

[Lonnie Samek]

Just wondering where all this is going..We are faced with a injection
well next to our property. I am
not going to place responsibility
on anyone. It is very troubling...
We are very concerned about our
water, Agriculture and Personal
use...We all use Oil and Gas but
how about some Accountibility.
I guess it is easy to judge without
it being in your backyard....

[Geos]

"Patty" is just one in an endless string of well funded right wing extremist professional corporate whores in the great tradition of Sneer, Smear, Fear Republicans. Hey Patty, now much are corporate whores going for these days?

[Landman 2]

I do not deny it. It is an established law that has served the State of Texas well for many years. And no, I would not like having a piece of property that I had no control of. However that is the law, and you are not going to get it changed because the state/majority of citizens benefit by developing the minerals. It is no different than people who have seen increased railroad/airport activity over the years. You bought the land knowing that this was a possibility. If I buy a piece of land that backs up to a vacant lot I know that someday it could be developed. Bottom line is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[educatedvoter]

The form of the debate is exactly what you said about the undeniable benefits/effects of the Drilling practices associated with the Barnett Shale.

money/prosperity vs. health/prosperity

I have invested all my money and equity into my home and property and in most cases, a person's home is the biggest investment and assett they own. Do you deny that surface land can and is used to build pad sites and place well heads and tank batteries that can take up surface owners land and that this can be and is done without consent of the surface owner? Are you aware that when a pipeline is laid to link the wells to the processing plants that a surface owner is not allowed to so much as put a tree on top of it to develope out their assett making it more profitable for them? Where is the balance of prosperity?

You again have made an argument by muddying the waters and ignoring the original questions. We can determine the value of a surface only by asking the general public that with an informed public on the practices associated with drilling, would you buy a property that has that kind of risk or would you move on?

[BH]

Landman2: Quit second guessing me, trying to quote me, and assuming
you know what my issues are. I have more than one, but you choose
to ignore them. I am also the poster above about the VOTE of the
people. I have asked you several times to give me an e-mail address
so I can show you my cover letter. You are not man enough in your
position to see some proof. Since you are so interested in me
do me a favor and call up 4/7's for me 817-870-9998 and find out
for me what happened to that well they (4/7's) were going to drill
in the near future, from July 2007 1/2 mile northwest of my property.
That well was used on me as an inducement to sign a lease right away. While you have them on the phone, see if you can find out
who the woman is who works there that had the audacity to tell me
last July, that all the leasing south of 1/20 where I live, has already been leased up. It was such a blatant lie, I am still dizzy
from it. Focus BC and actually use your knowledge and help out a
woman in distress who has a mineral lease. Do something productive.

[Landman 2]

You two act as if there are no benefits to this. The benefits are undeniable. The State Universities are what they are because of oil & gas. The taxes you pay are less, your schools are better, your police are better equipped etc etc. Poor Bev's only gripe is that she didn't get what her neighbors got (all of her other arguments are red herrings). Boo hoo! My house didn't appreciate in value the same way others did, probably never will. That is life, I chose where I live, I have to accept the consequences. You can go through life wishing things were different or you can make the best of it. If the minerals were retained prior to buying the property, don't buy the property or negotiate a lower price. Your problem is that you didn't think it was going to be a problem & now you can't/won't leave. No one knows how long the royalties will continue or how much they will be worth! Any projection you read is a guess! The system is not broken! It has served the citizens of this state very well over the years, and you are both foolish to think people will change that now.

[educatedvoter]

Ah yes, "free" will to choose where we live in America. However, we didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us. My home and land have been in use for almost 100 years, even before the Mineral Rights were sold seperately from Surface. The "most" people I feel you are refering to might be the "few" that benefit. But I am not on the defensive, you see, I have done nothing but try to exist in this land and express the right to live a healthy life and drink clean water and breath clean air. You sir, are defending the right of others to intrude on my rights. This is the disagreement, Who's rights are more important? Somebody's rights to make money with a promise of trickle down effect or somebody's right to live. This now has evolved to an ethical question hasn't it? When the concept of America was being developed, it was invisioned that a fair compromise for "ALL" would exist by way of a Democracy. When The colonies were being unfairly taxed they revolted with the Boston Tea Party and when Massachusetts had their rights taken away of free enterprise, they again revolted with what they now refer to as "the shot heard around the world" and hence the American Revolution. Many Americans feel the need to continue Free enterprise, however, a bit of responsibility with those actions is imperative. We have no structure or responsibility for this "free" enterprise known as Oil and Gas exploration because it is only "free" to those who profit. Where is the win win here for all? "Democracy can not survive on an unimformed public." Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father, American Revolutionist and Former President of the United States of America.

Now, inform us Landman 2 and answer my questions from earlier. We can resolve to a compromise as long as we know the truth don't you agree? Shifting responsibility by blaming a citizens group for fighting for thier rights is complete avoidance of responsibility for the mess in the first place. Nice try though, but please convince me with the truth and facts. I am open minded.

The anonymous poster above has a point, somewhat, instead of the assumption that either one is right about the development of the Natural Resources in the Barnett Shale, why not put it to a vote? Debate the issue with truth and facts and let the people decide. But before this can be a well informed public vote, more studies and research into the practices must be disclosed and tested. AS it now stands, especially after the protests and the uninformed Congress, we are left at a disadvantage by lack of discovery in this case.

Alas, I stand behind my original thought that more research is needed, that Congress should require disclosure of chemicals used and conduct an impact study on health and safety of the public before any vote could act as a compromise/solution to protests. The Injustice occurred by the neglect of the Congress and the Lobby of the Industry and should be rectified immediately to protect it's citizens first. Until then, aren't we all just pissing in the wind?

[Landman 2]

Your much ballyhooed win in court does nothing but shift the waste to somewhere else in Wise County. The waste will probably travel some of the distance on US 380, which is already a very dangerous & well travelled road. By discouraging natural gas drilling you are encouraging the use of coal, the importation of oil & outdated nuclear plants. Using natural gas for power generation is the best choice. Unless you are willing to live off the grid you are being hypocritical. I think injecting fluids a mile into the earth & using salt water & other chemicals in fracing is an acceptable risk associated with this choice. I think the majority of people agree with me. Call it collateral damage, but everyone is free to live wherever they want.

educatedvoter* Seems to me like its only fair that Mayor Montcrief
and the rest of the city council put all us mineral owners,
who signed a lease or not, and including every taxpayer in the
Tarrant County Barnett Shale on the City's Health Benefit Plan.

The same plan all city employees's get. They could use the mega
Bonus money they collected and the Royalties they collect for
City owned Land to pay for it.

For the City Council of Fort Worth to allow the Energy companys
Free Reign to develope the Barnett Shale in our Urban communities
without a VOTE of the people first, to allow them a choice and
a voice in the decision was a gross injustic and disregard of the
citizens. This abuse of power reminds me of the "Big Fish in a little Pond" syndrome. We all know who the Big Fishes are and how
they are reaping the rewards financially both personally and for
the City Government. About those 100,000 leases the people signed?
it was a no win situation. The Drilling was going to happen whether
you signed or not. The majority of those signers were shafted on
Bonus or Upfront Money for the mineral leases. The Royalty amounts
paid out won't cover a trip to the doctor, when most of us get
sick from the pollution.

[educatedvoter]

Bottom Line is this, because of the exemptions that render the use of chemicals by Drilling companies, there are no studies that have been done that give the number of the people that have had ill effects of drilling practices. I wrote this some time back, I hope this help explain my position. It focuses mostly on injection/disposal well disbursment methods, but the same applies for fracking too since this is where the chemicals originate.

Nobody likes to here of Children Dying or people suffering especially when it was us who could have prevented the suffering.
The Most Frequently used statements by those who wish to pollute the environment and justify the willful poisoning of Texas citizens include the spin that the absence of data isn't the same as negative data therefore equating the absence of any study to show the hazards of a chemical exposure proves that they are indeed non-toxic.

HUMBUG I say.

This approach is a widely used method to deliberately mislead victims of Chemical Exposures that have and do result in illness and sometimes death. Time and Time again unethical operators and Government officials spew out the statement,

"there's no evidence that Brine water or Salt water or any pollutant used in Oil and Gas Production will cause Cancer, birth defects, ect."

But then that leaves you to question why they are allowed to say that, and why no studies have been done to challenge the all too flawed theory that exonerates those who would profit from the Silencing of the Lambs. It would seem that such injustice to humanity and the environment should be placed on the regulatory governmental agencies to carry out the proper studies and then provide proof that the diatribes of the industry have a proven argument that indicates the chemicals used are free of harm.

As long as society accepts the absence of such data, there will be little incentive to regulate with stronger standards and policies that will protect our lives. We as humans should challenge the assertion that chemicals and the disposal methods used in classifying the Brine "Salt Water" and the self regulated method used in the disposal of said non-hazardous waste to be safe for direct human contact that include facilities less than ½ mile from our homes or 500 yards from our potable water wells.

Industry, Railroad Commission and State and Federal Legislators in favor of "Rape the Land and it's inhabitants, we don't stinkin' care as long as I get my Money" are able to deny the effect of toxic exposure or even purposefully deny the "upsets" (Industry Term used by Railroad Commission to classify contaminations) and even if they do get caught, it's legal thanks to the continued abuse and politics in oil and the Bush/Cheney Regime. Those of us who have believed in the Truth and Justice of American Government thought at one time that there was no way they would be able to get away with using all of our water and then contaminating what was left by forcing down a tube at high pressure and velocity a toxic cocktail of unknown levels of contaminants by willfully and purposefully disbursing unknown chemicals back into the earth right through our water supplies.

NO WAY WOULD THAT EVER BE ALLOWED!

But the fact is that most of the industrial chemicals used by Oil and Gas companies have not been tested for effects on human consumption or inhalation. The truth is the National Research Council concluded that a large variety of the chemicals used by Oil and Gas and other Industry have not been evaluated for definitive Toxic effects to a human body of any age or size. (1) This amazes me especially since even our Government wouldn't dare allow the use of drugs and chemicals to treat illness without some testing to explore the adverse effects to Humans. Even more than that, Americans would demand no less than this evasive act. Again I stress to this reader that there is little incentive to industry or Legislators to fill in the gaps to do the proper studies to determine ill and adverse effects. The one thing you can be sure of in America is the Industry is held to strict standards that require certain procedures to be followed that will protect the environment and human life dwelling inside of it. Why they have the Railroad Commission, The TCEQ and even the EPA. Now theirs and Incentive, right? WRONG! The TCEQ and the EPA have no control over Oil and Gas Industry. They have even exempted the regulating of Oil and gas from The Federal Clean Air Act and won't maintain records to the use of the Water. So After allowing Legislation and Congress to pass laws that continues to Exempt the Industry by not doing the studies, it is now left up to the State of Texas and the Railroad Commission to regulate the unethical mass of Operators and by their own admissions under oath they just don't have the capacity to regulate every single operator so they make regulations and hope they adhere to them. A perfect example of "who's minding the store. The Railroad commission has decided that Workplace Standards for Industrial Chemicals can determine the safe dosage of exposures to the Industry Chemicals and therefore the same standards should be used in determining safety for affected communities that might be exposed to the toxic cocktails that are being disbursed. How can that safe standard exist without the studies? How can one persons exposure be measured the same as somebody with Asthma or Allergies? The answer is that these questions can't be answered that would in anyway support the use of the least expensive method used by Industry to dispose (I call it Disburse) of the Chemical Waste that is produced by well development and attainment of the Energy Resources they call Oil And Natural Gas. So to admit the uncertainties would then leave the development to a much higher standard and greater cost for the Developers. So then one must question the risk assessments done by all involved in the process and ask how come they know? Let's take for Instance the "Safe" levels as determined by the Railroad Commission and the Producers of the Chemical known as Benzene. "Safe" levels by Governmental standards to Exposures in the workplace was determined a few years ago as 1,000 PPM (parts per million). What? How can any known cancer-causing compound be safe at any level? The answer is they can't. Especially to Children, Already Sick persons or the elderly. These "safe" levels have been determined by using the "collateral Damage" theory, what I mean by that is the number that it would effect is fewer than the "Greater Good" it helps which include the bottom dollar to the producers whom posted a Multi-Billion Dollar Profit in 2006. Propaganda has led the American Public into believing that it is necessary for "the greater good" to produce Hydrocarbons for the American People and reduce the cost of Fuel. Again I say HUMBUG. These Myths that they are Safe and fully regulated by our government with the use of the Acceptable levels of exposure is a bunch of hogwash since no studies have been done and are used to confuse, delay and even discourage victims from seeking answers to the nightmares they face when they have just lost a child or have fell ill for no known reason or lost a spouse or a beloved pet and even have to live through the moans and pain of a child who has frequent nose bleeds and Asthma attacks just from playing in the yard.

(1) www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/243_toxicignorance.pdf

[educatedvoter]

I can understand your theory, I just don't agree. I hear you saying that the people who live in Tarrant County that have surface water are "safe" to drink the water, but the few of us in rural areas that depend on Well water should be considered Collateral Damage because of the "greater Public Interest" that drilling practices have and whom it benefits. Hence the ruling by the Travis County Third Court of Appeals that has rendered this kind of thinking unfair.

Now, for those that might be affected by an injection well or drilling practices in urban areas, how safe is the air quality? Have you researched the facts on this? Find out what chemicals are used and how they travel through the air. The lawmakers according to EPA officials are without the true facts and can't make good decisions for public safety. This is the reason for the frustration of the People. Don't you agree? If you don’t, give me the facts and will that be the whole story? The Safe drinking water act and our air quality in the state of Texas is FAILING. We have until 2010 to come into compliance with Federal Air Quality Standards or we risk loosing Federal Funding. Until now, Texas has been able to obtain Credits from other, more environmentally friendly states across the nation to continue the fasod that we are within compliance. I think this is the point that most are trying to make here, at least I am. Nobody should/could put the drilling companies out of business, but to make things a level playing field, alternatives resources and complete information is a must. Otherwise, we have failed as a Democracy. Everybody can play the game as long as the rules are fair, the above decision makes the industry and the TRRC render judgment that is fair and it is no longer a Kangaroo Court. I suggest lets finish the circle and ask Congress to review the Federal Exemptions and include all the information on fracturing jobs and require them to disclose the chemicals used in fracturing the tight sand formation and coal beds. Would you be against this? And if so, Why? If the chemicals and practices are safe and we, the people are protected, then let the research by the EPA be included in the reports and disallow Lobby to convince the elected officials that the standards are set by the EPA because it was considered "Safe".

Here’s the truth, when the fracturing technology was being reviewed and the chemicals evaluated by the EPA, the original report was not favorable to the Industry. A petroleum engineer out of Midland and a member of the TIPRO Group contacted the President via Karl Rove and asked in a letter, “…is this what we get when we elect a president and put him in office?” That letter was then sent on to environmental advisor in the White House with a note in Karl Roves handwriting that said, “Please take care of this.” A few weeks later in a response by EPA Official, G. Tracy Meehan, that thanked him for his comments and his input as an expert, said that the EPA would re-evaluate the policy and that until then; the industry would be exempt to practice with business as usual. Last year, Congress made it official and continued the exemptions after the original report had been modified. This again is the reason for the resignation and contempt by the head of EPA and it’s investigators. They feel as if Standards were lowered to accommodate the Industry and prevent the EPA from what they are set up to do.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to make sure you were informed before you rendered your response.

[Landman 2]

How does injecting fluids a mile under land render anyone's property worthless? I am much more concerned about Wal-Mart & crime affecting my property values & I think the majority of people feel the same way. The reality is that people in the country have different concerns from people in the city. You can try your scare tactics all you want, but we aren't listening! We get our water from lakes not wells. 100,000 were not flim flammed by lobbyists, we chose to make decisions based on facts & acceptable levels of risk. More people have died recently because of Atmos Energy delivering gas to people's homes than any drilling activities & I don't see anyone trying to run them out of town!

[educatedvoter]

This my Friend;) Landman 2, is how energy drilling companies lead the property owners to beleive that it was okay to drill without any risk and got those 100,000 leases signed.

Oil and gas companies have lots of money therefore have a powerful lobby.

Change the lawmakers that aren't willing to vote for campaign reform.

Lobbying in my opinion is a necessary evil because we must be able to speak with those elected officials and have the meetings to discuss the issues on both sides. However, Those meetings should not take place on Overnight trips to the Caribean or at 5 star restaraunts but over a Happy meal at the local McDonalds where we all have a level playing field. (being PC I should point out that Wendy's, Burger King and for the Vegan, the local Salads and such would be okay too)

[educatedvoter]

You need the truth, here it is. This is how Industry Plays games to hide the truth. This is a bit long, but well worth the read.
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/06sum/rockies1.asp

I pulled some information about "the truth" to what they are drilling for/with that can and sometimes do render property worthless to surface owners. If you continue to drill in populated areas, these are the viable risks you will face.

"In the spring of 2005, Amos spent several days in Washington, D.C., as part of a group of Rocky Mountain activists lobbying against the proposed fracturing exemption in the federal energy bill. When Jim Jeffords, the Independent senator from Vermont, later introduced the Hydraulic Fracturing Safety Act of 2005, which would have limited the ingredients in fracturing fluids to nontoxic products, he recounted her story on the Senate floor. "It is unconscionable to allow the oil and gas industry to pump toxic fluids into the ground," Jeffords told his colleagues. But the Jeffords bill went nowhere, and when the federal energy bill passed last July, it included the hydraulic fracturing exemption, explicitly prohibiting only the use of diesel fuels. "Basically, there's a handful of people who have been seriously threatened by this practice standing up against a multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry," says NRDC's Olson.

Though environmentalists applaud the prohibition on diesel fuel, historically a common ingredient in fracturing fluids, they point out that the ban will have little actual impact: The three largest hydraulic-fracturing companies had already signed a voluntary agreement with the EPA to eliminate diesel fuel from fracturing in coal beds, and the majority of fracturing jobs in tight-sands formations already eschew diesel. "Diesel is just the tip of the iceberg," says Sharon Buccino, a senior attorney with NRDC. "The real problem is that we just don't know what else is being used."

Olson says the flawed EPA report played a crucial role in the congressional debate. "Time and time again, we heard from congressional staffers, 'Well, the EPA doesn't think this is a problem, so you're just overreacting,' " he says. "The report clearly gave the oil and gas industry cover to lobby for this thing."

For EPA whistleblower Weston Wilson, this was especially galling. Wilson has retained his post at the agency and even continues to work on oil and gas projects in Utah. But EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, a Clinton appointee, dropped her investigation into Wilson's complaints in January # and shortly afterward announced her resignation. In a letter to Representative Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, one of several members of Congress who had requested the investigation, Tinsley said that her decision to end the probe was the result of the energy bill's exemption of hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

"Congress has blocked the agency from doing what it should, by law, be required to do," says Wilson. "I'm afraid Congress was misled by the EPA's inappropriate conclusion that this was benign.""

[BH]

Anyone interested in a discussion with Mr. Popp on surface verses
mineral right owners, go to the November archives, click on the
"Share your Success story" with the cooked turkey showing, go to
the bottom of the page. This post here sounds just like his writing.
Some pretty strong views on both sides of the issue are discussed.

[Landman 2]

Texas Law also states that the mineral estate is the dominant estate, so attempts to change these rights or take away the right to develop these assets would surely result in lawsuits. Also, the developers and governmental agencies have more clout than me or you, that is just the reality of the situation. If this situation is as lopsided as you claim, how is it that 100,000 leases were signed last year in Tarrant County? Maybe there are easier solutions, like not buying houses in subdivisions with no mineral rights. In case you haven't heard, it is a buyers market. Just because the minerals were reserved, doesn't mean you can't ask for them back or negotiate a lower price. There are lots of nice older homes that have their mineral rights still. Also you can demand that the governmental agencies share the wealth by lowering taxes instead of adding to their already bloated bureacracy. Does each suburb really need it's own separate ISD?

[kyle]

Educated voter my butt. These cases have been decided in courts. Go ahead. We mineral owners will sue your butt off for inverse condemnation.

Mineral owners call your attorneys and get prepared to stop these people.

[educatedvoter]

to All:

Using Swift boating to muddy the waters on this all to importnat issue only allows those oppossed to your cause to win. Being factual and to the point allows the debate to come to a resolve or compromise. Research is the key to educating yourselves about the lack of environmental protections and surface owners rights when it comes to drilling for our natural resources. The truth is that so many "deregulations" have occurred that are set towrds the industry friendly drilling practices that we see today. Why you ask? because the tail wagged the dog and we let foriegn interest decide what was best for our energy needs. Then along came the need to drill for alternatives for "energy Independence" cloaked in patriotism. The reality is that the energy independence slogan is only good for the small majority of the people lucky enough to have the good sense to retain their mineral rights and the ones who lease them for drilling. In Suburban drilling, these people are either the developers who have already made thier fortunes selling the surface and/or city/county or school properties that gained the land and mineral rights long before it was even to sell the mineral rights seperately from the surface. People who have invested life long committments and savings into a property without mineral rights are victims of this mass "gold rush". Law states that it is illegal for a destruction of property by non-land owner without permission, except for Drilling companies set up for profit. Again surface owners are victims again because the taxes for their property continue to rise when in my opinion drilling activities have the potential to render the land worthless due to contamination and access.

The solution: CHANGE THE LAWS AND THE LAW MAKERS THAT PROTECT ENERGY PRODUCERS AND THEIR INTERESTS FIRST.

[judgeT]

You have a deal BH. JudgeT it is. Just if someone steals this handle and posts something offensive or degrading know it is not me. Have a good weekend. Luv ya as well.

[BH]

judge* How about judge with your first initial? like, judgeT

or sugardaddy or santa works for me!!! luv ya

[Judge]

I'm the nice Judge, or I try to be. Any suggested handles I could use to set myself apart? Thanks BH.

[Judge]

BH, not sure if anyone else is using this handle. I may need to change it. What has not been used out there that would be creative?

Thanks

[BH]

Judge*& Judge?

How many judge's are using this handle?

Is there a judge 1 and a judge 2 ?

One judge is nice and the other one has issues with left and right
wing nutssssss.

[Judge]

No use in getting personal people. I hardly agree with one thing Sharon has to say but she is entitled to her opinion, so let's be civil and state our case like it used to be in this country wihtout resorting to the politics of destruction from both sides.

[Bigjim]

And Poop (Popp) goes the weasel said he can be purchased at the right price many times.