Site search
sponsored by
News
With apologies to Bob Dylan, there are tentative signs that attitudes in the extractive industries in general and natural gas drilling in particular may be taking a positive turn. Over the past few weeks, there've been encouraging reports from both industry giant ExxonMobil and the relatively small group of specialized mining industry folks attending the Solution Mining Research Institute conference right here in Grand Junction.
A couple of weeks ago, an Associated Press story trumpeted the news that ExxonMobil now favors disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, the gas drilling process necessary to pry natural gas out of tight sand formations in western Colorado and elsewhere. In a regulatory filing following the company's acquisition of Texas-based XTO energy, the oil and gas giant said such disclosures could help alleviate public concerns.
That's important because, with the purchase of XTO, ExxonMobil becomes the fifth largest producer in southwest Colorado's La Plata County and could become an industry advocate for the type of disclosures many in Colorado feel are long overdue.
Opponents of disclosure often pass around a list of 140-plus common frac fluid ingredients compiled by another firm, Chesapeake Energy, as a response to complaints about secrecy concerning what's being pumped underground in quantities that, though they might comprise less than 1 percent of total fluid volume, can reach as much as 500,000 gallons of chemicals for an individual well. That's a marginally useful document because it doesn't tell which ingredients might actually be in the concoction forced downhole at any specific site.
What they don't pass around is word that Chesapeake is also a firm on record as favoring disclosure.
Another encouraging sign came this past week when those attending the Solution Mining conference out at the DoubleTree were encouraged to view regulators as partners rather than adversaries. That advice came from the president of a firm that worked with more than three dozen agencies to complete a natural gas storage facility in a hollowed out cavern in Louisiana.
Paul Bieniawski, president of Bobcat Natural Gas Storage, said the key to success was working with those agencies and adopting an attitude that addressed what was possible rather than a single-minded focus on what the company wanted.
Those opinions voiced by two separate firms in the extractive industry might offer some guidelines for the more strident voices in the ongoing energy debates in Colorado. Those would include the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and some of its members as well as gubernatorial candidates on both sides of the aisle.
The natural gas industry is justifiably proud of steps it's taken to minimize its footprint on the landscape of western Colorado. As many as 22 wells can now be drilled from one pad; different methods for moving gas and drilling byproducts minimize truck traffic; and gases formerly flared via open flames are now captured. Forward thinking firms engaged in consultation with the Division of Wildlife and other regulators before new rules required that.
There's a roadmap contained in those steps and in the actions by ExxonMobil, Chesapeake and Bobcat. It's puzzling to me why some ignore those potential new routes and persist in re-fighting old battles over rules, in opposing disclosure of what's in the frac fluids and, currently, in trying to convince regulators and the public that it's OK to just dig a hole and bury pit liners rather than dispose of them in an approved manner.
Seems to me the road might be smoother and the journey faster if openness and disclosure became the rule rather than the exception. If, as an example, industry lawyers weren't sent to argue that even though pit liners are necessary to keep toxins from seeping into the ground, their clients ought to be able to just bury used liners in that very same ground once the pits aren't needed any more. That may garner billable hours. It likely wouldn't pass the straight-face test on Main Street.
It's been more than a decade since I first hung out my shingle as a consultant. One of my first calls came late one morning from an acquaintance in Denver who'd been engaged to help the precedessor to one of the major operators in the Piceance Basin deal with some community issues. By early afternoon, I was seated in a conference room in Parachute participating with two or three local representatives of that firm on a conference call with their counterparts and my friend in Denver.
I still wonder how different things might have been over the intervening dozen or so years if they'd taken our advice then about dealing more openly with their critics and the issues they were facing.
Jim Spehar heats his house and some of his columns with natural gas. Your comments are welcome at jimspehar@bresnan.net.
A couple of weeks ago, an Associated Press story trumpeted the news that ExxonMobil now favors disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, the gas drilling process necessary to pry natural gas out of tight sand formations in western Colorado and elsewhere. In a regulatory filing following the company's acquisition of Texas-based XTO energy, the oil and gas giant said such disclosures could help alleviate public concerns.
That's important because, with the purchase of XTO, ExxonMobil becomes the fifth largest producer in southwest Colorado's La Plata County and could become an industry advocate for the type of disclosures many in Colorado feel are long overdue.
Opponents of disclosure often pass around a list of 140-plus common frac fluid ingredients compiled by another firm, Chesapeake Energy, as a response to complaints about secrecy concerning what's being pumped underground in quantities that, though they might comprise less than 1 percent of total fluid volume, can reach as much as 500,000 gallons of chemicals for an individual well. That's a marginally useful document because it doesn't tell which ingredients might actually be in the concoction forced downhole at any specific site.
What they don't pass around is word that Chesapeake is also a firm on record as favoring disclosure.
Another encouraging sign came this past week when those attending the Solution Mining conference out at the DoubleTree were encouraged to view regulators as partners rather than adversaries. That advice came from the president of a firm that worked with more than three dozen agencies to complete a natural gas storage facility in a hollowed out cavern in Louisiana.
Paul Bieniawski, president of Bobcat Natural Gas Storage, said the key to success was working with those agencies and adopting an attitude that addressed what was possible rather than a single-minded focus on what the company wanted.
Those opinions voiced by two separate firms in the extractive industry might offer some guidelines for the more strident voices in the ongoing energy debates in Colorado. Those would include the Colorado Oil and Gas Association and some of its members as well as gubernatorial candidates on both sides of the aisle.
The natural gas industry is justifiably proud of steps it's taken to minimize its footprint on the landscape of western Colorado. As many as 22 wells can now be drilled from one pad; different methods for moving gas and drilling byproducts minimize truck traffic; and gases formerly flared via open flames are now captured. Forward thinking firms engaged in consultation with the Division of Wildlife and other regulators before new rules required that.
There's a roadmap contained in those steps and in the actions by ExxonMobil, Chesapeake and Bobcat. It's puzzling to me why some ignore those potential new routes and persist in re-fighting old battles over rules, in opposing disclosure of what's in the frac fluids and, currently, in trying to convince regulators and the public that it's OK to just dig a hole and bury pit liners rather than dispose of them in an approved manner.
Seems to me the road might be smoother and the journey faster if openness and disclosure became the rule rather than the exception. If, as an example, industry lawyers weren't sent to argue that even though pit liners are necessary to keep toxins from seeping into the ground, their clients ought to be able to just bury used liners in that very same ground once the pits aren't needed any more. That may garner billable hours. It likely wouldn't pass the straight-face test on Main Street.
It's been more than a decade since I first hung out my shingle as a consultant. One of my first calls came late one morning from an acquaintance in Denver who'd been engaged to help the precedessor to one of the major operators in the Piceance Basin deal with some community issues. By early afternoon, I was seated in a conference room in Parachute participating with two or three local representatives of that firm on a conference call with their counterparts and my friend in Denver.
I still wonder how different things might have been over the intervening dozen or so years if they'd taken our advice then about dealing more openly with their critics and the issues they were facing.
Jim Spehar heats his house and some of his columns with natural gas. Your comments are welcome at jimspehar@bresnan.net.
