Archives > Flower Mound Leader > News
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
RSS
Share
Questions remain on seismic testing, wastewater collection
By Chris Roark, roarkc@acnpapers.com
A few questions regarding seismic testing and a centralized wastewater collection facility were answered during the Flower Mound town council meeting, but there are still more to be addressed.
The council examined the issues Monday in a public hearing as residents’ opinions continue to grow.
The Williams gas company has requested that seismic testing, or vibroseis, be allowed so that it can locate more productive areas to drill. Vibroseis is performed by trucks equipped with plates that vibrate on the ground to deliver seismic waves into the subsurface to obtain data recorded by surface receivers.
While Williams has been a key focus in the debate, Monday's public hearing was to address these issues town-wide and not at a specific site.
To address the questions that remain, the council will have a work session Nov. 19.
There, council members hope to find answers to several questions relating to both items, such as what a cost estimate on a sample seismic test would be since one of the central themes Monday night was the need to have a test to put several questions to rest. In addition, the town staff has been asked to locate a place in town to conduct the test.
Another focus could be liability issues. The preliminary model agreement the town would have with a gas company, which is only in the draft phase, includes that the town would be indemnified against claims and damages caused by testing but does not include individual property owners.
Council member Mike Wallace, who suggested the town's Oil and Gas Board of Appeals join in the work session to provide insight on several topics, said he would like to see various options presented as to what residents can do to protect themselves should their property get damaged, such as the cost of getting a rider for an insurance policy.
Residents debated over the impact seismic testing would have on roads, homes and other infrastructure. Some argued that it's too dangerous.
"Do we need seismic testing to let residents access their minerals?" said resident Laurie Long. “Is that a necessary action? My opinion is that it’s not. So why are we putting unneeded risk in our community if it’s not necessary?”
Others challenged the town to find any proof that seismic testing is damaging.
"You’ve got Bartonville, Argyle, Arlington and Fort Worth," resident Chris Tomlinson said, “and not one place over there has had one house or one road collapse from a seismic machine conducting a survey. There’s not one piece of data in the United States that says that this causes damage. I’ve told Williams that they can park that machine in my driveway and have at it because my house isn’t going to fall down.”
John Nichols, an associate professor in the department of construction science at Texas A&M University, was brought in to give his opinion on seismic testing. He said seismic testing would cause damage to roads, though he said how much damage is unknown. He suggested the town do its own test since soil types vary in different parts of the country.
Among the information the town staff provided Monday was an expanded list of cities and whether they do or do not allow seismic testing. This list included some cities outside the standard list of comparison cities Flower Mound uses in its frequent surveys since some of those aren't affected by the Barnett Shale and others that aren't typically used in comparisons are in the Barnett Shale.
Denton and Southlake are the only two out of the 15 standard survey cities that allow seismic testing. Stretching outside the standard list, eight other cities allow it, while four of the cities that don't allow it haven't had any requests for it.
Burleson is a city that does allow it, and it has a model agreement that some residents urged the town to pattern its agreement after. Matt Woods, director of environmental services for Flower Mound, said Burleson entered into their agreement three years ago and has had several tests take place but has not received any complaints from residents or had reports of damage occurring.
The discussion of a centralized wastewater collection facility was just as passionate, especially after the town staff presented a clip from two news investigations from WFAA-TV that claimed there is benzene found in emissions at various drilling sites in the Barnett Shale area. The report stated that benzene has numerous effects, such as causing Leukemia.
The chemicals in the air comes from somewhere, some residents say.
Among the questions the town council wants answered at the work session include what is in the flowback water and produced water that is used in the drilling process. The composition of the water varies, Woods said, and per federal regulations, the additives in those types of water are not required to be disclosed.
Since the council last discussed these issues, the town staff contacted six gas operators requesting an analysis of the water and a listing of the fracturing additives. Three of them responded, and some of the many additives listed include biocides, acids, corrosion inhibitors, friction reducers, surfactants and scaling inhibitors.
Woods said the town hopes to create standards in the ordinance that would address control, containment and other aspects of these additives during the drilling process.
Some residents were alarmed, and others said the fears are unfounded.
"I wholeheartedly support (a central wastewater collection facility) because if not, you’re increasing the potential for groundwater contamination,” resident Phil Delvecchio said. “You’re increasing the number of large tanks at each pad site, and you’re increasing the number of tank truck driven miles."
Long said, "Why would we create a contract that allows for pipelines of wastewater throughout our community when we don’t even know what’s in the water?”
Council member Tom Hayden twice asked Tony Silvestri, regional vice president for Williams in the Barnett Shale area, if town officials could have permission to take their own sampling of the water used at Williams' drilling site and have it tested. Twice Silvestri said, "We've already done that for you."
Council member Al Filidoro suggested a wastewater recycling center at the location, saying it would eliminate many of the concerns associated with having a central location. He and other council members also continued to push for air quality testing in Flower Mound.
The following are comments from the readers.
In no way do they represent the view of Starlocalnews.com
In no way do they represent the view of Starlocalnews.com
You must register with a valid email to post comments.
Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here:
Become a Registered User
- Return to: News «
- Home «
- Top of Page ^
