Pine Mountain Creek (Van Buren County) development

[KimL]

I hope to be able to post an update tomorrow or Wednesday with further details.

[Trismegistus]

I did go back yesterday and surveyed the watershed east of Highway 65 -- far less activity and again no observable runoff into any tributaries observed. Some of the plots and lots heavily populated with trucks and equipment with concomitant oil leaks and such but no release of drilling fluids noted -- but again this area is densely populated with wells and rigs -- far more than one person could ever oversee. I think there is Something like 2000 wells now in 4-5 county area -- probably more than even the ADEQ can oversee.

Moreover many of these sites are posted which makes public oversight far more problematic. I guess the ADEQ at least has the authority to ignore such posts. Should be a law that whenever a well operation exists within a watershed all landowners within that watershed should be allowed to inspect said operation as they have a vested interest.

[prophet]

3 or more companies will do work drilling at each site. Some of these are owned by the company controlling the operation. All different parts of the process.

is the Operator of this wellsite known? if so, have they been contacted?

[Tmuse]

I thought alot of these wells were on private property and the gas co. pay a certain % of money to the land owners for these sites. Correct me if i'm wrong. Tmuse

[Trismegistus]

All SEECO in this area. I haven't contacted the company as I can't pinpoint discharge. Hopefully KimL will help us identify source of pollutant.

Nearly all of this property is under lease and is held by private landowners -- thus both the land owners and the gas companies are within their rights in restricting access -- even to the extent of disallowing public inspection.

The real irony? These same companies are going to court to adjoin landowners and take land via coercion and force for wells and pipelines by stating they are benefiting the public. By meeting the Arkansas Constitution's definition of "public use" these companies are even able to gain access, easements or outright title of the land via eminent domain. Yet although our courts are in near 100% support in granting the gas and oil companies an "open license to take these lands" to support exploitation of the underlying shale beds, the public and concerned citizens are barred from these same lands. In essence the state is claiming that "there is a strong public use to get natural gas out of these areas that are developing," but there is no need for the public to actually have access to these same developments to assure best management practices are being pursued during extraction of this natural gas.

Screwed again.

[DeBo]

In November of last year, Desoto Gathering company put a pipeline across Pine Mountain above Hogan Creek. They did it without obtaining the required Short Term Activty Authorization (STAA) and did nothing to protect the stream. A land owner called ADEQ and the inspector went out and took water samples. The samples below the crossing where they were working looked like thick mud. While he was there a truck hauling drilling waste turned over and dumped it's load next to the creek. This is happening everywhere in the Cadron and Little Red watersheds. They are going to kill these streams. ADEQ does not do inspections unless there is a complaint and by then the damage is done. I think that it is time for all of us to flood their office with complaints.

I am dead serious about this. We are working on a plan to get proactive inspections and better enforcement. If they start getting a bunch of calls it might help the cause.

If the creek is still muddy, they may be doing something else to it. I believe I'll head up that way with my camera.

[Tmuse]

You go Debo Keep us informed on what is going on with this problem. We are the state and need to take care of our State. I wonder if these land owners with the wells Know what kind of damage that is being done by the gas companys. Tmuse

[DeBo]

Thanks Tim and a huge thanks to Kim for strarting this discussion and thanks CB for keeping an eye on things.

[KimL]

I am going to continue to be somewhat circumspect as I answer questions about what I know to protect all those involved. Thank you to everyone who continues looking.

Tris, the state does in fact have the right to inspect private land for violations. The law that would have made inspections more difficult did not pass.

According to what I was told initially on the current sample, ADEQ was notified of the spill by a concerned local citizen but did nothing. (I have not been able to confirm.) ADEQ may also have been contacted by Van Buren law enforcement but did nothing. (I'm fairly sure of this information.) The site may be a SEECO site (or there may be two contaminated sites.) The spill in question is most likely a caustic substance and largely water based. (Some chemists will be checking the sample later in the week.)

By the way, the permit for the pipeline near our place was issued after construction started and was for an area surveyed for environmental impact that was about a mile down the road--and with very different conditions than where the pipeline actually went. I got all the way to Marks at ADEQ and she said that moving the pipeline did nothing to invalidate the authorization or the environmental impact report. (Who cares if one area has several water crossings and the other does not!)

To my knowledge, the big fish kill on the Little Red near Pangburn could have resulted in a fine of $10,000-$300,000/day. but ADEQ did nothing.

[prophet]

All SEECO in this area. I haven't contacted the company as I can't pinpoint discharge. Hopefully KimL will help us identify source of pollutant.

Nearly all of this property is under lease and is held by private landowners -- thus both the land owners and the gas companies are within their rights in restricting access -- even to the extent of disallowing public inspection.

The real irony? These same companies are going to court to adjoin landowners and take land via coercion and force for wells and pipelines by stating they are benefiting the public. By meeting the Arkansas Constitution's definition of "public use" these companies are even able to gain access, easements or outright title of the land via eminent domain. Yet although our courts are in near 100% support in granting the gas and oil companies an "open license to take these lands" to support exploitation of the underlying shale beds, the public and concerned citizens are barred from these same lands. In essence the state is claiming that "there is a strong public use to get natural gas out of these areas that are developing," but there is no need for the public to actually have access to these same developments to assure best management practices are being pursued during extraction of this natural gas.
Screwed again.

its not feasible to allow anyone around heavy construction type activity. That's for a regulatory agency.

As best i can remember from looking into other resource extraction activities, State Best Management Practices only mention a 50' stream buffer and that seemed to be only a guideline. Seems like this would be the place to focus, so our streams can be protected from ALL the bad guys out there. Then there are all the Federally owned lands to worry about...

[KimL]

Grant, they are not following the 50-foot stream buffer, and they are using misplaced environmental assessments to avoid Army Corps involvement. (At least that's what happened near us.)

Agreed too: the job belongs to state officials; we just need to get them to do their job.

[prophet]

times are hard when you're hoping the Army Corps of Engineers will protect your stream

[Trismegistus]

A couple of points: "Tris, the state does in fact have the right to inspect private land for violations." Yes, the state does, but it's citizens do not. Moreover many of our state regulatory agencies have a big hand in the pie -- even the ADEQ acquires funding indirectly via the oil and gas companies and the AGF&C has certainly sold out through direct leases. All regulatory agencies are turning a "blind eye" for the sake of a few dollars and votes. I myself would much rather prefer having a bunch of concerned and passionate friends monitoring the Fayetteville Shale play than our state regulatory offices.

As to "its not feasible to allow anyone around heavy construction type activity, that's for a regulatory agency." Sarcasm perhaps? All I know is that I've spent the two past days personally inspecting no less than a dozen wells, miles of pipelines, pump/compressor stations and even a couple of ongoing drilling operations and not once did I see an inspector or a government-labeled truck. Moreover many of the sites can't really be described as "heavy construction" -- once the catchment basins are dug, the gravel pads laid down and the pipeline buried -- most of these sites can be easily inspected without risk of harm -- many are even accessible from nearby public roads.

I might also add that in those "plays" in my section or adjoining me -- I have yet to meet or see any inspectors and EISs are non-existent -- not even required for many of these projects.

I'm with Debo -- it's time we ourselves take the lead -- by the time the state intervenes the wells will all be in place and we'll be left holding onto a bunch of scarred mountainsides and fouled streams.

TANGENT: And just how much money is that new severance tax brought in? Not nearly enough!! Beebe's 5-percent severance tax includes so many exemptions that it is obviously written by his friends in the gas and oil industry. Given that there isn't ample money available now for inspection and enforcement, there certainly is not going to be enough money to repair the damage when it is time for the wells to be capped.

[prophet]

Tris, if you don't mind anyone and everyone coming on to your land to "inspect" what you're doing in there, i'll take one of those gate cards i've heard about.

i think we should vote on which industry does the greatest harm to Arkansas' natural resources and then them in order

some choices:

drilling
chickens
timber
electricity
walmart
farming

[KimL]

John, you are preaching to the choir on many of your points.

I think the issues have been discussed in this forum several times: too little severance tax money to monitor drilling and fix problems with it and related problems ( e.g. roads); some state agencies may have disincentive to enforce, etc.

Of course, trespassing remains illegal. Therefore, yes, I think it's past time for interested parties to fight for better regs and enforcement of existing regs, but we still must work within the law or get it or the people who enforce it changed.