Oil company proposing drilling and fracking just south of Lake Hefner | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2014/12/14/oil-company-proposing-drilling-and-fracking-just-south-of-lake-hefner/)

I've never been a fan of Ed Shadid before but he makes some very good points in his interview for this story.

What could possibly go wrong? :)

What could possibly go wrong? :)

Fracking a couple hundred feet away from our largest source of drinking water. Sounds like a great idea! :wink:

If there was any doubt left this should erase it; Oklahoma has turned everything, and by everything - I really mean everything, over to the oil companies at the expense of everyone and everything else. It is only a matter of time before they start drilling in graveyards. Remember the Simpsons episode where the drill in the elementary school. That doesn't seem so far fetched anymore.

Why do the TV news station's not even try to edit their online stories? Not for inaccuracies, but the grammar, Lord it's terrible (and this is from someone who gives zero F's about grammar).

Maybe I'm thinking of this wrong, but typically your concerns of contaminating drinking water is pollution of rural wells, not a lake that holds water that's sent to an adjacent treatment plant for treatment before use. If I'm wrong there feel free to throw me to the wolves.

Why do the TV news station's not even try to edit their online stories? Not for inaccuracies, but the grammar, Lord it's terrible (and this is from someone who gives zero F's about grammar).

Maybe I'm thinking of this wrong, but typically your concerns of contaminating drinking water is pollution of rural wells, not a lake that holds water that's sent to an adjacent treatment plant for treatment before use. If I'm wrong there feel free to throw me to the wolves.

You're probably correct, but there could be an accident at the site which might cause surface discharge with runoff contaminating our water supply for years. And these guys are choosing to have their plant where they're choosing it, so I can't see that they have much regard for the safety of ordinary folks. The risk outweighs the reward.. and to do this when prices are down.. well it makes zero sense.

I agree though.. the cojones it takes to even be proposing this is extreme. And if it's approved? I think that will pretty much signify that our politicians are too afraid of the oil and gas industry to reasonably regulate them.

I'm as pro oil as anyone on here but I'm also a frequent user of the Lake Hefner recreational/golf facilities, and for that reason I don't agree with this.

Assuming they manage to not pollute the lake, this is still stupid. The proposed location in in the natural area with the trail to the immediate south, the TORKS field to the west, hobie point to the north and paddlers point to the northeast. Seems contrary to the adopted Lake Hefner Recreation Master Plan as well.

https://www.okc.gov/planning/hefnerrec/Lake%20Hefner%20Plan%20Update%20Document%20Final%2 0Summer%202007.pdf





https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/s960x960/10861112_687299834717395_8571274759268424353_o.jpg

Keeping in mind too the site prep work involved in setting up a drilling pad, or possible pads. Clear cutting, grading, and graveling each drill site, and the infrastructure and equipment brought in to support such operations. If this goes through, all the residents in the area should get ready for round the clock disturbance. Not just from having to listen to the drilling rigs running at all hours, but from the heavy trucks and traffic.

But hey, ... look at the bright side. The city just might have finally found a way to clean up Hobie Point.

Keeping in mind too the site prep work involved in setting up a drilling pad, or possible pads. Clear cutting, grading, and graveling each drill site, and the infrastructure and equipment brought in to support such operations. If this goes through, all the residents in the area should get ready for round the clock disturbance. Not just from having to listen to the drilling rigs running at all hours, but from the heavy trucks and traffic.

But hey, ... look at the bright side. The city just might have finally found a way to clean up Hobie Point.

I suppose you might guess that your comments could be considered to be offensive to some.
Fortunately, I don't live directly north of the damn dam.

What could possibly go wrong? :)

Well . . . "They " could consider beginning the construction of a Braum's location in the immediate vicinity of that Fish Farm and Water Treatment Plant . . . Nah . . . Too close to Randy (whatzisfaces) Re-Do of Bricktown North. After all . . . Without a Lake, what is it? =)

Please be Advised: I am not a Skater nor Bicyclist not a Feral Rock-Dwelling Local Cat Fancier.

At some point in time, I think one has to say nope to dope.
No matter what supposed immediate economic benefits apparently seem to present themselves.

As you well know: There is a distinct difference between "Weather" events and "Whether" events.
(ain't there?)

Didnt the city put a moratorium on more commercial development around the lake? I'm quite sure that a little while after Louies was built, they put a stop to more development. So, I guess a housing tower is bad but a drilling rig is just fine?

The risk here just seems to big compared to the reward.

Welcome to the way things are today. The risks are socialized, the rewards are privatized.

"Fracking" will not, in any way, affect water in the lake. If that is legitimately anyone's concern, you clearly don't understand the process. It's almost asinine that "fracking" is even brought up in the article. The location is also far enough from the lake that any spill or runoff from a spill wouldn't be an issue.

The primary issues here should be whether the noise and traffic from the drilling operations will affect those living around the location and how much the physical location will affect the natural setting of the area and people's use of it.

Hell to the NAW!

"Fracking" will not, in any way, affect water in the lake. If that is legitimately anyone's concern, you clearly don't understand the process. It's almost asinine that "fracking" is even brought up in the article. The location is also far enough from the lake that any spill or runoff from a spill wouldn't be an issue.

The primary issues here should be whether the noise and traffic from the drilling operations will affect those living around the location and how much the physical location will affect the natural setting of the area and people's use of it.

saw a neighborhood email floating around (not ours, but made it to our HOA president anyhow) and the second sentence was this...

There is a Lake Hefner Drilling Proposal (fracking) public meeting that we just found out about.

What is the purpose of putting fracking in parentheses? There is none. I'm not for this proposal, but it continues to amaze me how a portion of the populace refuses to learn anything about natural resource exploration and just hang their hats on buzzwords and heresay.

Phi is correct in that the largest nuisance in this proposal is heavy truck traffic and sight and hearing nuisances from said traffic along with the same from the drilling operation itself. Lake Hefner drive is already the worst road in the metro, don't need to beat it up anymore.

And a few months back you and phi alpha were swearing that waste water disposal had nothing to do with making our state more seismically active than california...we all have seen how that has turned out.

So when you say that there is no risk for contamination during or after the fracing process...

Well you both have proven to be nothing more than mutts trying to appease your masters.

I'm thinking that name calling has little to add to this discussion.

"Fracking" will not, in any way, affect water in the lake. If that is legitimately anyone's concern, you clearly don't understand the process. It's almost asinine that "fracking" is even brought up in the article. The location is also far enough from the lake that any spill or runoff from a spill wouldn't be an issue.

PooPoo never happens in the oilfield, except when it does. Below, one of many stories from a simple google search of fracwater not being where it's supposed to be. In this case it flowed for miles. The proposed Hefner site is less than a quarter mile from the lake.

On the morning of June 28, a fire broke out at a Halliburton fracking site in Monroe County, Ohio. As flames engulfed the area, trucks began exploding and thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals spilled into a tributary of the Ohio River, which supplies drinking water for millions of residents. More than 70,000 fish died. Nevertheless, it took five days for the Environmental Protection Agency and its Ohio counterpart to get a full list of the chemicals polluting the waterway. "We knew there was something toxic in the water," says an environmental official who was on the scene. "But we had no way of assessing whether it was a threat to human health or how best to protect the public."

This episode highlights a glaring gap in fracking safety standards. In Ohio, as in most other states, fracking companies are allowed to withhold some information about the chemical stew they pump into the ground to break up rocks and release trapped natural gas. The oil and gas industry and its allies at the American Legislative exchange Council (ALEC), a pro-business outfit that has played a major role in shaping fracking regulation, argue that the formulas are trade secrets that merit protection. But environmental groups say the lack of transparency makes it difficult to track fracking-related drinking water contamination and can hobble the government response to emergencies, such as the Halliburton spill in Ohio.

According to a preliminary EPA inquiry, more than 25,000 gallons of chemicals, diesel fuel, and other compounds were released during the accident, which began with a ruptured hydraulic line spraying flammable liquid on hot equipment. The flames later engulfed 20 trucks, triggering some 30 explosions that rained shrapnel over the site and hampered firefighting efforts.

Halliburton Fracking Spill Mystery: What Chemicals Polluted an Ohio Waterway? | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/halliburton-ohio-river-spill-fracking)

And a few months back you and phi alpha were swearing that waste water disposal had nothing to do with making our state more seismically active than california...we all have seen how that has turned out.

So when you say that there is no risk for contamination during or after the fracing process...

Well you both have proven to be nothing more than mutts trying to appease your masters.So correct me if I'm wrong here, I but remember phiapla was just disputing the water-wee contamination myth, not the earthquakes. I've had people who were directly involved in fracking tell me they caused earthquakes and quite frankly, I don't care. I'll take the small tremors over the loss of economic impact that fracking is adding to the economy.

So correct me if I'm wrong here, I but remember phiapla was just disputing the water-wee contamination myth, not the earthquakes. I've had people who were directly involved in fracking tell me they caused earthquakes and quite frankly, I don't care. I'll take the small tremors over the loss of economic impact that fracking is adding to the economy.

There were threads earlier this year over earthquakes that im referencing where a phiaplha and pahdz were disputing the claims that the oil companies had anything to do with the earthquakes. Fast forward a few months later and numerous scientist, universities, usgs, and even the Devon CEO admit that waste water injection near faults is causing the earthquakes.

Fracing itself only is known to cause small earthquakes over a short period of time, but remember there is a huge earth dam on the north side of the lake that directly overlooks thousands of homes, businesses and hospital. But more importantly remember that there have been dozens of proven cases around the country where well casings have broke, spills happened, and contamination entered private and public water supplies.

So if you think it's ok to risk the main drinking supply of water for a hundreds of thousands local citizens, so a private company can create a very short term profit on 1 well. Well not much I can do to fix that.

There were threads earlier this year over earthquakes that im referencing where a few Homers were disputing the claims that the oil companies had anything to do with the earthquakes. A point that devon ceo, numerous scientist, and universities have all stated that ww injection near faults is causing the earthquakes.

fracing itself doesnt create large earthquakes( waste water injection does), but remember there is a huge earth dam on the north side of the lake that directly overlooks thousands of homes, businesses and hospital. But more importantly remember that there have been dozens of proven cases around the country where well casings break, spills happen, and contamination enters private and public water supplies.

So if you think it's ok to risk the main drinking supply of water for a hundreds of thousands local citizens, so a private company can create a very short term profit on 1 well. Well not much I can do to fix that.

I honestly don't know much about the water contamination issue. I am trusting the experts here because I haven't done my homework. If there is any proof of water contamination, than that is an issue. For the earthquakes, I just don't see a problem with small tremors.

Not to derail anymore on the waste water injection earthquake side because you obviously arent a homeowner. If you think that Oklahoma is having small quakes with no damage conduct a 5 second Google search over the damage people have sustained to their homes and businesses. Broken windows, collapsed chimneys into the structure of their house, foundation damage, split drywall, water well casing breaking, numerous instances of entire walls of bricks coming off a the side of a house, etc. (Think of all the jobs us homeowners are creating getting all this stuff fixed, right?)

Alot of insurance companies aren't even offering earthquake insurance here anymore because of the exponentially increasing number of manmade occurrences. We have a new build home that was completed over a year ago and have minor damage already. Even though we were able to get coverage on our home, the deductible is insane, never mind the fact that I'm being forced to pay a yearly cost for an industry that has admitted it is damaging my property and others; plus I also get to pick up the cost for minor (thank god) repairs I've had to make so far.

If that isn't socialized cost and privatized profits i don't know what is.

And a few months back you and phi alpha were swearing that waste water disposal had nothing to do with making our state more seismically active than california...we all have seen how that has turned out.

So when you say that there is no risk for contamination during or after the fracing process...

Well you both have proven to be nothing more than mutts trying to appease your masters.

Quit putting words in my mouth, I never said that water injection wasn't causing earthquakes and you know it. I specifically said that it could be in response to everyone of your insulting rants. I'm not going to bring that ridiculous conversation again. And to this point, injection still hasn't been proven as the cause so the jury is still out.

In this case, there is no way fracking would damage above ground water, 7,000 feet higher than the lateral they are fracking, and that's if this is even a horizontal well.

PooPoo never happens in the oilfield, except when it does. Below, one of many stories from a simple google search of fracwater not being where it's supposed to be. In this case it flowed for miles. The proposed Hefner site is less than a quarter mile from the lake.

On the morning of June 28, a fire broke out at a Halliburton fracking site in Monroe County, Ohio. As flames engulfed the area, trucks began exploding and thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals spilled into a tributary of the Ohio River, which supplies drinking water for millions of residents. More than 70,000 fish died. Nevertheless, it took five days for the Environmental Protection Agency and its Ohio counterpart to get a full list of the chemicals polluting the waterway. "We knew there was something toxic in the water," says an environmental official who was on the scene. "But we had no way of assessing whether it was a threat to human health or how best to protect the public."

This episode highlights a glaring gap in fracking safety standards. In Ohio, as in most other states, fracking companies are allowed to withhold some information about the chemical stew they pump into the ground to break up rocks and release trapped natural gas. The oil and gas industry and its allies at the American Legislative exchange Council (ALEC), a pro-business outfit that has played a major role in shaping fracking regulation, argue that the formulas are trade secrets that merit protection. But environmental groups say the lack of transparency makes it difficult to track fracking-related drinking water contamination and can hobble the government response to emergencies, such as the Halliburton spill in Ohio.

According to a preliminary EPA inquiry, more than 25,000 gallons of chemicals, diesel fuel, and other compounds were released during the accident, which began with a ruptured hydraulic line spraying flammable liquid on hot equipment. The flames later engulfed 20 trucks, triggering some 30 explosions that rained shrapnel over the site and hampered firefighting efforts.

Halliburton Fracking Spill Mystery: What Chemicals Polluted an Ohio Waterway? | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/halliburton-ohio-river-spill-fracking)

While this was a bad and extremely rare accident when compared to the number of wells drilled yearly in the US, the conversation was about fracking poluting drinking water and this is a quote from the bottom of the article you posted:

"Ohio state officials maintain that the river water is safe to drink because the fracking chemicals have been so heavily diluted."

While this was a bad and extremely rare accident when compared to the number of wells drilled yearly in the US, the conversation was about fracking poluting drinking water and this is a quote from the bottom of the article you posted:

"Ohio state officials maintain that the river water is safe to drink because the fracking chemicals have been so heavily diluted."

Followed by: But environmentalists are skeptical. "Tons of chemicals and brine entered the waterway and killed off thousands fish," says Johnson of the Ohio Environmental Council. "There's no way the drinking water utility or anyone else could monitor those chemical and determine whether the levels were safe without knowing what they were. Even today, I don't think the public can be sure that the water is safe to drink."

The reason the story is linked, so people can read it and draw their own conclusions.

70,000 fish kill and massive mess, even if it doesn't affect the drinking water.

Oh look, another story of responsible fracwater handling, one of many. I'm not against fracking, in fact have mineral interest leased that will be horizontal drilled. I'm against irresponsible oil exploration, which drilling at Hefner is.

Karnes Co. authorities consider possible charges after frack water spill (http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/texas/2014/07/11/karnes-fracking-water-spill/12549157/)

The actual fracking of the well isn't going to contaminate the water at Hefner. BUT, if there was a problem, there is a high possibility of contamination of the water. That is probably a small percentage, but the risk does not outweigh the reward.

Followed by: But environmentalists are skeptical. "Tons of chemicals and brine entered the waterway and killed off thousands fish," says Johnson of the Ohio Environmental Council. "There's no way the drinking water utility or anyone else could monitor those chemical and determine whether the levels were safe without knowing what they were. Even today, I don't think the public can be sure that the water is safe to drink."

The reason the story is linked, so people can read it and draw their own conclusions.

70,000 fish kill and massive mess, even if it doesn't affect the drinking water.

Oh look, another story of responsible fracwater handling, one of many. I'm not against fracking, in fact have mineral interest leased that will be horizontal drilled. I'm against irresponsible oil exploration, which drilling at Hefner is.

Karnes Co. authorities consider possible charges after frack water spill (http://www.kens5.com/story/news/local/texas/2014/07/11/karnes-fracking-water-spill/12549157/)

Saying environmentalist are skeptical is like saying energy companies swear that the accident didn't happen. Environmentalists are completely bias against fossil fuel production. The regulatory agency is the only neutral component, especially in Ohio where the regulatory agencies are much more anti-industry than traditional producing states.

The Karnes Co. situation is unrelated to fracking or operations at the well location and was likely some idiot trucking company either trying to save money on disposal costs or a leak that no one noticed. It would be much less likely for something like that to occur in an urban drilling situation due to the massive increase in exposure. Also this was not a frac water issue and further proves my point about the gross over use and sensationalism of the term fracking by the media and environmentalists. They were disposing of used drilling fluid/mud, which is very easy to contain and doesn't flow like a liquid (hence why it stayed contained on the 8 miles of roadway it spilled on).

"Sheriff's investigators learned that an On Point tanker left a drilling site loaded with drilling fluid, according to the department’s report, which the TCEQ and the Railroad Commission credit as the basis for their recent actions. Records show the tank was empty when it arrived at a facility where tankers are cleaned out, according to the report."

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140709/texas-sheriff-wants-criminal-charges-filed-fracking-pollution-case

I am for responsible drilling as well and in the vast majority of cases responsible drilling and producing practices are applied. I no longer work for an exploration and production company and haven't for 2 years so I don't have a skin in the game. I just feel it is important to dispel misinformation when I know much more about the subject matter than most that post here.

The actual fracking of the well isn't going to contaminate the water at Hefner. BUT, if there was a problem, there is a high possibility of contamination of the water. That is probably a small percentage, but the risk does not outweigh the reward.

In the very unlikely event that something happened their really isn't even a high probability of contamination. I would say low to maybe moderate. Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily the best idea, but drilling occurs with little to no complication outside of noise complaints in much closer proximity to neighborhoods and water sources all over the country. It is in the vast majority of cases done responsibly

The Karnes Co. situation is unrelated to fracking or operations at the well location and was likely some idiot trucking company either trying to save money on disposal costs or a leak that no one noticed. It would be much less likely for something like that to occur in an urban drilling situation due to the massive increase in exposure. Also this was not a frac water issue and further proves my point about the gross over use and sensationalism of the term fracking by the media and environmentalists. They were disposing of used drilling fluid/mud, which is very easy to contain and doesn't flow like a liquid (hence why it stayed contained on the 8 miles of roadway it spilled on).



^Incorrect and misleading.

Flowback water is related to fracing.


The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has sent a notice of enforcement to a Falfurrias company, alleging that one of its trucks spilled 128 barrels — 5,376 gallons — of flowback water over 9 miles of roadway in Karnes County in the early-morning hours of March 10.

State sends enforcement notice to trucking company for Karnes spill - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/State-sends-enforcement-notice-to-trucking-5585607.php)


Flowback is a water based solution that flows back to the surface during and after the completion of hydraulic fracturing. It consists of the fluid used to fracture the Marcellus shale. The fluid contains clays, chemical additives, dissolved metal ions and total dissolved solids (TDS). The water has a murky appearance from high levels of suspended particles. Most of the flowback occurs in the first seven to ten days while the rest can occur over a three to four week time period. The volume of recovery is anywhere between 20% and 40% of the volume that was initially injected into the well1. The rest of the fluid remains absorbed in the Marcellus shale formation.

Wilkes | What is flowback, and how does it differ from produced water? (http://energy.wilkes.edu/pages/205.asp)

Every bit of chemical and equipment used at Hefner will be trucked in, stored and what doesn't remain downhole, will be trucked out. Poo poo happens. It's irresponsible to drill this well at that location.

Does anyone know how to reach our city councilmen? If any of them vote to OK this drilling, they should be impeached immediately.

^Incorrect and misleading.

Flowback water is related to fracing.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has sent a notice of enforcement to a Falfurrias company, alleging that one of its trucks spilled 128 barrels — 5,376 gallons — of flowback water over 9 miles of roadway in Karnes County in the early-morning hours of March 10.

State sends enforcement notice to trucking company for Karnes spill - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/eagle-ford-energy/article/State-sends-enforcement-notice-to-trucking-5585607.php)
Flowback is a water based solution that flows back to the surface during and after the completion of hydraulic fracturing. It consists of the fluid used to fracture the Marcellus shale. The fluid contains clays, chemical additives, dissolved metal ions and total dissolved solids (TDS). The water has a murky appearance from high levels of suspended particles. Most of the flowback occurs in the first seven to ten days while the rest can occur over a three to four week time period. The volume of recovery is anywhere between 20% and 40% of the volume that was initially injected into the well1. The rest of the fluid remains absorbed in the Marcellus shale formation.

Wilkes | What is flowback, and how does it differ from produced water? (http://energy.wilkes.edu/pages/205.asp)

Every bit of chemical and equipment used at Hefner will be trucked in, stored and what doesn't remain downhole, will be trucked out. Poo poo happens. It's irresponsible to drill this well at that location.

It is not incorrect or misleading according to the article I posted. It is you that doesn't understand the difference between drilling fluid, flowback, and produced water. Drilling fluid is used to lubricate the bit when DRILLING the well, it comes back to the surface and must be disposed of either by burying it in a pit or trucking it off. It has absolutely nothing to do with fracking. Flowback is exactly what you defined above and produced water is saltwater produced with oil throughout the life of the well. The article I cited stated that drilling fluid was trucked out, not flowback. If the article you cited is correct, than the spill was related to fracking.

Does anyone know how to reach our city councilmen? If any of them vote to OK this drilling, they should be impeached immediately.

As a rule, Ed Shadid votes no on everythingthat doesn't involve bus stops so you should be in good shape.

It is not incorrect or misleading according to the article I posted. It is you that doesn't understand the difference between drilling fluid, flowback, and produced water.

No problems with my understanding of the process or fluids used. Clarification is offered for those whom are mislead by your blanket statements that the fracking process can in no way affect the lake.


The article I cited stated that drilling fluid was trucked out, not flowback. If the article you cited is correct, than the spill was related to fracking.

The difference being largely irrelevant in the context of the topic. Poo poo happens. Chemicals used in drilling often get spilled outside containment and are sometimes intentionally dumped.

The difference being largely irrelevant in the context of the topic. Poo poo happens. Chemicals used in drilling often get spilled outside containment and are sometimes intentionally dumped.

And saying that anything is often spilled from drilling sites is a major stretch.

The actual fracking is not the issue. It's the environmental impact that the drilling process will have on public land that is in fact located right next to a prime dinking water source on one side and private properties only a short distance away on the other. The site(s) will be cleared of all trees, grasses and habitat. Electrical power lines and poles will have to be erected to the site to provide power unless there will be onsite power generation.....

Down the road, when all is said and done, the area will never return to what it was. Even if there never is an environmental accident, the area was still sold out.

Oh look, a spill that wasn't contained on site:


Seven families in Bradford County have been asked to evacuate following a large spill during fracking operations in the Marcellus Shale at a Chesapeake Energy well west of Towanda, Pa. Earlier reports that there was a blow-out were inaccurate, according to company officials.

A local Emergency Management official said he didn't believe the families had gone anywhere.

"It's literally on top of a mountain," said Francis "Skip" Roupp, deputy director of the Bradford County Emergency Management Agency.

According to Chesapeake spokesman Brian Grove, “At approximately 11:45 p.m. on April 19, an equipment failure occurred during well-completion activities, allowing the release of completion fluids from a well at a location in Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pa."

He said, "there have been no injuries or natural gas emissions to the atmosphere.”

Local news sources are reporting that thousands of gallons of fracking fluid have spewed over and beyond the well pad, but an official on the scene told the Patriot-News that is not accurate. "It wasn't spewed in the air," he said.

An equipment failure allowed flowback fluids to wash onto the well pad in volumes that overwhelmed the multiple containment precautions in place. The official noted those containment features were already at least partially full because of several days of rain in the northern tier.

Spill at Marcellus Shale drilling site in Bradford County prompts evacuation | PennLive.com (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/04/fracking_spill_in_bradford_cou.html)

The actual fracking is not the issue. It's the environmental impact that the drilling process will have on public land that is in fact located right next to a prime dinking water source on one side and private properties only a short distance away on the other. The site(s) will be cleared of all trees, grasses and habitat. Electrical power lines and poles will have to be erected to the site to provide power unless there will be onsite power generation.....

Down the road, when all is said and done, the area will never return to what it was. Even if there never is an environmental accident, the area was still sold out.

This.

Though it's not necessarily true that the area will never return back to what it was. I've seen many abandoned well sites restored to almost pristine conditions, but that is obviously after years of looking like a well site which would be far less than optimal in this case.

Oh look, a spill that wasn't contained on site:

Seven families in Bradford County have been asked to evacuate following a large spill during fracking operations in the Marcellus Shale at a Chesapeake Energy well west of Towanda, Pa. Earlier reports that there was a blow-out were inaccurate, according to company officials.

A local Emergency Management official said he didn't believe the families had gone anywhere.

"It's literally on top of a mountain," said Francis "Skip" Roupp, deputy director of the Bradford County Emergency Management Agency.

According to Chesapeake spokesman Brian Grove, “At approximately 11:45 p.m. on April 19, an equipment failure occurred during well-completion activities, allowing the release of completion fluids from a well at a location in Leroy Township, Bradford County, Pa."

He said, "there have been no injuries or natural gas emissions to the atmosphere.”

Local news sources are reporting that thousands of gallons of fracking fluid have spewed over and beyond the well pad, but an official on the scene told the Patriot-News that is not accurate. "It wasn't spewed in the air," he said.

An equipment failure allowed flowback fluids to wash onto the well pad in volumes that overwhelmed the multiple containment precautions in place. The official noted those containment features were already at least partially full because of several days of rain in the northern tier.

Spill at Marcellus Shale drilling site in Bradford County prompts evacuation | PennLive.com (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/04/fracking_spill_in_bradford_cou.html)

Again, as I said before, accidents happen but it is very unlikely. Major incidents, such as the ones you're referring to, probably only occur in well under 1% of the 15,000 to 20,000 wells drilled in the US every year and a much lower percentage of the 1,000.000+ producing wells in the US. With that low of risk, should drilling be prevented around lake Hefner? That will be for the city to decide.

Does anyone know how to reach our city councilmen? If any of them vote to OK this drilling, they should be impeached immediately.

Some of them have email addresses and phone numbers on their pages. Some do not. Or call city hall at the main number and ask.

City of Oklahoma City | Ward Map (http://www.okc.gov/council/wardmap/)

This.

Though it's not necessarily true that the area will never return back to what it was. I've seen many abandoned well sites restored to almost pristine conditions, but that is obviously after years of looking like a well site which would be far less than optimal in this case.

I guess saying " never" could be a stretch, but it would be a very long time if and when it does. Maybe I should have added, "without the OERB's help".

To those who want to drill near the lake:

Drill, baby, drill!

You couldn't wait to lord your mineral rights over farmers, ranchers and even home owners so you could over-produce and, inadvertently, give consumers the best Christmas present they could ever have; Lower gas prices! Just don't complain about your profits going lower, you've gotten your reward. Let's go for one dollar a gallon gas!

I remember as a kid riding our bikes over to that area of the lake with our wrist rocket sling shots. I still have mine! Good memories.

warm and very wet in western Oregon.

PooPoo never happens in the oilfield, except when it does. Below, one of many stories from a simple google search of fracwater not being where it's supposed to be. In this case it flowed for miles. The proposed Hefner site is less than a quarter mile from the lake.

On the morning of June 28, a fire broke out at a Halliburton fracking site in Monroe County, Ohio. As flames engulfed the area, trucks began exploding and thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals spilled into a tributary of the Ohio River, which supplies drinking water for millions of residents. More than 70,000 fish died. Nevertheless, it took five days for the Environmental Protection Agency and its Ohio counterpart to get a full list of the chemicals polluting the waterway. "We knew there was something toxic in the water," says an environmental official who was on the scene. "But we had no way of assessing whether it was a threat to human health or how best to protect the public."

This episode highlights a glaring gap in fracking safety standards. In Ohio, as in most other states, fracking companies are allowed to withhold some information about the chemical stew they pump into the ground to break up rocks and release trapped natural gas. The oil and gas industry and its allies at the American Legislative exchange Council (ALEC), a pro-business outfit that has played a major role in shaping fracking regulation, argue that the formulas are trade secrets that merit protection. But environmental groups say the lack of transparency makes it difficult to track fracking-related drinking water contamination and can hobble the government response to emergencies, such as the Halliburton spill in Ohio.

According to a preliminary EPA inquiry, more than 25,000 gallons of chemicals, diesel fuel, and other compounds were released during the accident, which began with a ruptured hydraulic line spraying flammable liquid on hot equipment. The flames later engulfed 20 trucks, triggering some 30 explosions that rained shrapnel over the site and hampered firefighting efforts.

Halliburton Fracking Spill Mystery: What Chemicals Polluted an Ohio Waterway? | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/halliburton-ohio-river-spill-fracking)Nuclear power has had horrible disasters, yet I still believe Nuclear is the best energy production method out there. A few isolated incidents shouldn't step in the way of progress.

Nuclear power has had horrible disasters, yet I still believe Nuclear is the best energy production method out there. A few isolated incidents shouldn't step in the way of progress.

What do you think should be done with the waste? Who should under write the liability on the plant if private insurers won't ?

What do you think should be done with the waste? Who should under write the liability on the plant if private insurers won't ?

If the US recycled its nuclear fuel more, there would be a lot less nuclear waste. Its not perfect, but the environmental consequences are less than coal. This is only when countries actually build new modern power plants that are safer. Today we are pushing old nuclear power plants to their limits.

What do you think should be done with the waste? Who should under write the liability on the plant if private insurers won't ?
Nuclear wast can be turned into a number of things. I'm not sure how long a spent fuel rod has to sit submerged in the water until it is safe to do something with it, but I would venture to say as technology gets better there will be new ways to re-purpose the waste created by them. With all forms of energy, there are downsides. If we were to completely change to wind energy, the turbines could alter the wind patters, solar could cause heating in the atmosphere, etc... The sun is a nuclear fireball and look how much energy we can harvest from it this far away. Just think if a miniature sun were created in the future even if it put out a millionth of what the sun put out, it could power every home on the earth. I'm also thinking beyond nuclear fission. I want to study nuclear physics, as physics in general interests me, but there are always way to dispose of things properly and I really believe nuclear is the future.

I do want to say, I still have a lot to learn about all of this, and I'm excited to learn about it.

What do you think should be done with the waste? Who should under write the liability on the plant if private insurers won't ?The waste can be disposed of by dropping it into the subduction zones where tectonic plates meet. It will then be carried down into the magma, where there's presumably plenty of quite active radiation keeping it molten, and the many miles of dirt and water on top provide shielding for us puny mortals.

In the long run, that would be far less damaging to our prospects of long habitation of the planet, than is our present use of fossil fuels that -- if one believes the most vocal environmentalists -- will kill us off before another century goes by.

And history clearly shows that properly operated nuclear plants are far safer than conventional energy sources. In the nearly 70 years since the dawn of the nuclear age, precisely three persons have died due to nuclear-power incidents, and even that single event may have been suicide-and-murder due to a jealous cuckold.

Some 60 years ago I personally attended an oilfield accident that claimed that same number of lives, and in the same year also attended a dual-fatality traffic accident involving the oil industry. Those five deaths were only a fraction of the total during that period for a single state, much less the nation. Coal mining frequently kills dozens at a blow, and disables many more with black lung disease.

As for the media-driven rush to blame "fracking" for most everything, we must remember that fracking has been normal procedure in the oil patch for well over a century. Initially, they used nitroglycerin torpedos to do the job. That's what caused the three fatalities I mentioned above; 100 quarts of nitro shredded the men attempting to lower a single quart into the casing.

The difference these days is the use of high-pressure liquids to break up the rock, instead of explosives.

While the jury is still out on all the details, it appears to be generally accepted that disposal of waste water (and for that matter, other appropriate liquids) into special-purpose wells drilled at certain critical locations is probably providing a lubricant to existing fault lines, which allows the omnipresent pressure of the moving plates to slide a bit easier, thus creating swarms of small quakes such as we are experiencing. The quakes may be many miles away from the disposal wells; it's not yet predictable.

That suggests that, rather than fearing all fracking, we should attempt to locate and ban those "certain critical locations" for disposal wells and thus reduce the impact on the fault lines.

That, however, might be a sensible approach. And it definitely wouldn't sell any ads.

As for "who would insure" against liability, it's always true that when there's a buck to be made, someone will step up and offer to make it.

The waste can be disposed of by dropping it into the subduction zones where tectonic plates meet. It will then be carried down into the magma, where there's presumably plenty of quite active radiation keeping it molten, and the many miles of dirt and water on top provide shielding for us puny mortals.

In the long run, that would be far less damaging to our prospects of long habitation of the planet, than is our present use of fossil fuels that -- if one believes the most vocal environmentalists -- will kill us off before another century goes by.

And history clearly shows that properly operated nuclear plants are far safer than conventional energy sources. In the nearly 70 years since the dawn of the nuclear age, precisely three persons have died due to nuclear-power incidents, and even that single event may have been suicide-and-murder due to a jealous cuckold.

Some 60 years ago I personally attended an oilfield accident that claimed that same number of lives, and in the same year also attended a dual-fatality traffic accident involving the oil industry. Those five deaths were only a fraction of the total during that period for a single state, much less the nation. Coal mining frequently kills dozens at a blow, and disables many more with black lung disease.

As for the media-driven rush to blame "fracking" for most everything, we must remember that fracking has been normal procedure in the oil patch for well over a century. Initially, they used nitroglycerin torpedos to do the job. That's what caused the three fatalities I mentioned above; 100 quarts of nitro shredded the men attempting to lower a single quart into the casing.

The difference these days is the use of high-pressure liquids to break up the rock, instead of explosives.

While the jury is still out on all the details, it appears to be generally accepted that disposal of waste water (and for that matter, other appropriate liquids) into special-purpose wells drilled at certain critical locations is probably providing a lubricant to existing fault lines, which allows the omnipresent pressure of the moving plates to slide a bit easier, thus creating swarms of small quakes such as we are experiencing. The quakes may be many miles away from the disposal wells; it's not yet predictable.

That suggests that, rather than fearing all fracking, we should attempt to locate and ban those "certain critical locations" for disposal wells and thus reduce the impact on the fault lines.

That, however, might be a sensible approach. And it definitely wouldn't sell any ads.

As for "who would insure" against liability, it's always true that when there's a buck to be made, someone will step up and offer to make it.Wow! Great post and you really know your stuff on this. I'm a huge advocate on nuclear energy, but I still have a lot to learn here.

Again, as I said before, accidents happen but it is very unlikely. Major incidents, such as the ones you're referring to, probably only occur in well under 1% of the 15,000 to 20,000 wells drilled in the US every year and a much lower percentage of the 1,000.000+ producing wells in the US. With that low of risk, should drilling be prevented around lake Hefner? That will be for the city to decide.

Even if you're 100% right, I have a hard time looking that the up side on a risk/reward for starting up new drilling operation right next to the water source for how many people in OKC and Edmond? Especially when water supplies at other lakes have been a concern in recent years?

Considering how low oil prices are dropping, it just seems like something that could get passed on for now.

Forget all of the fracking talk and let's consider ourselves with the disruption to the trails and the thousands of people (and animals) who use Hefner. Think of the trucks. The noise. The wear on the lake road. The sound on the golf course. We all have worked for years and years to get the trails and lake where they are today. Are we really going to let this happen to one of the only centrally located natural areas that we have? Bert Cooper must be rolling over in his grave. Don't let this happen! Bikers, runners, walkers, golfers, neighbors, contact your city council person, they will have a vote on this. Send your concerns:

During this busy time of year, it may be difficult to attend the meeting. Therefore, the Utilities Department made it possible to receive comments and questions via email at ocwut-support@okc.gov or by regular mail at:

Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust
General Manager
420 West Main, suite 500
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

All written comments received by Monday, December 22, will be gathered and summarized in a report to the Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust in January 2015.

Forget all of the fracking talk and let's consider ourselves with the disruption to the trails and the thousands of people (and animals) who use Hefner. Think of the trucks. The noise. The wear on the lake road. The sound on the golf course. We all have worked for years and years to get the trails and lake where they are today. Are we really going to let this happen to one of the only centrally located natural areas that we have? Bert Cooper must be rolling over in his grave. Don't let this happen! Bikers, runners, walkers, golfers, neighbors, contact your city council person, they will have a vote on this. Send your concerns:

During this busy time of year, it may be difficult to attend the meeting. Therefore, the Utilities Department made it possible to receive comments and questions via email at ocwut-support@okc.gov or by regular mail at:

Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust
General Manager
420 West Main, suite 500
Oklahoma City, OK 73102

All written comments received by Monday, December 22, will be gathered and summarized in a report to the Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust in January 2015.

I got a little overzealous about my growing annoyance with the stigma around fracking but this was really the point I was trying to make.

This is a great plan! Hefner just above 49,000 acre/ft. Remember, 40,000 is the lowest they can go. Canton at 1601.95 or 18,500 acre/ft or so, and much of that would be lost to the riverbed. And they're considering drilling at Hefner. I have no problems with the oilfield, but drilling/fracking/production is not without some risks. Not any room for error.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t31.0-8/s960x960/10861112_687299834717395_8571274759268424353_o.jpg

http://s10.postimg.org/3zuusfn3d/oil.jpg

Who owns the land on the other side of the road from that spot? The place with the red/white/blue gates and no trespassing signs? I always thought that was the disputed drilling site?

Are they drilling for oil or gas? How do they know anything is down there? The lake is both downhill and downstream from the site. If they have a blow out; no way will that mess not get in the lake. It's just too close to the lake and no one wants the tanks to be there in the future. Look at that burning flame site over by Penn Square mall/Bell Isle.

Details on the meeting: Friends Of Lake Hefner | Oklahoma (OK) (http://lakehefner.org/)

Oklahoma City residents worried about Lake Hefner oil drilling proposal bring concerns to water trust | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-residents-worried-about-lake-hefner-oil-drilling-proposal-bring-concerns-to-water-trust/article/5376642)


Several residents worried about possible oil drilling near Lake Hefner discussed their concerns with the Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust at its regular meeting Tuesday.
“This has become a lightning rod for our neighborhood in north Oklahoma City because the presence of an oil-drilling rig on the south shore of Lake Hefner seriously jeopardizes the quality of our water,” said Tim Kirk, who lives on NW 72, near the proposed drill site.
City Manager Jim Couch, who serves as a trustee on the water trust, reminded residents it still was early in the process.

Any proposal would have to be approved by the trust and the city council.

“Having a public meeting and having public input is not a wrong thing to do to start the process,” Couch said.

“Just because we have a meeting a week before Christmas, we’re not trying to railroad anything through.”

What are the arguments FOR allowing this? Is this company big enough/solvent enough to financially cover the damage they could potentially cause?

What company? This well will probably be placed in an LLC separate from the company. The oil and gas industry is pretty awful about being responsible for the environmental damage they cause.

In a world of over-supply I am actually surprised anyone is proposing a new well.

saw a neighborhood email floating around (not ours, but made it to our HOA president anyhow) and the second sentence was this...

There is a Lake Hefner Drilling Proposal (fracking) public meeting that we just found out about.

...

I remember seeing this come up in sub-committee meetings what seems like at least six months to maybe even a year ago, I understand people finding out about this might be frustrated but that is part of why if your neighborhood has something like one of the major lakes, the river, a golf course or an airport in/near it that has committees that meet which get notifications and have to approve things on their land, the HOA ought to have someone either going to the meeting or at least watching the replays posted online.

It would be a good idea to also filter through what is requests to planning commission to see if any of the addresses are nearby. I think developers are only required to notify people within like 300 feet of projects, though sometimes on something like this they will be requested to do try a little harder than the legal minimum.

What company? This well will probably be placed in an LLC separate from the company. The oil and gas industry is pretty awful about being responsible for the environmental damage they cause.

Historically, that statement definitely holds water (hence why the OERB was formed), but now it largely depends on the company. Most mid-sized to large companies are very good at environmental remediation after accidents have occurred. Smaller companies can be a crap shoot. I don't know much about Pedestal, but I do know they operate several wells in North Edmond, I believe they just drilled a new one between Sorghum Mill and Coffee Creek off of Sooner Rd. that didn't cause any issues to my knowledge (though it is a much less populated, less sensitive area).

The waste can be disposed of by dropping it into the subduction zones where tectonic plates meet. It will then be carried down into the magma, where there's presumably plenty of quite active radiation keeping it molten, and the many miles of dirt and water on top provide shielding for us puny mortals.

In the long run, that would be far less damaging to our prospects of long habitation of the planet, than is our present use of fossil fuels that -- if one believes the most vocal environmentalists -- will kill us off before another century goes by.

And history clearly shows that properly operated nuclear plants are far safer than conventional energy sources. In the nearly 70 years since the dawn of the nuclear age, precisely three persons have died due to nuclear-power incidents, and even that single event may have been suicide-and-murder due to a jealous cuckold.

Some 60 years ago I personally attended an oilfield accident that claimed that same number of lives, and in the same year also attended a dual-fatality traffic accident involving the oil industry. Those five deaths were only a fraction of the total during that period for a single state, much less the nation. Coal mining frequently kills dozens at a blow, and disables many more with black lung disease.

As for the media-driven rush to blame "fracking" for most everything, we must remember that fracking has been normal procedure in the oil patch for well over a century. Initially, they used nitroglycerin torpedos to do the job. That's what caused the three fatalities I mentioned above; 100 quarts of nitro shredded the men attempting to lower a single quart into the casing.

The difference these days is the use of high-pressure liquids to break up the rock, instead of explosives.

While the jury is still out on all the details, it appears to be generally accepted that disposal of waste water (and for that matter, other appropriate liquids) into special-purpose wells drilled at certain critical locations is probably providing a lubricant to existing fault lines, which allows the omnipresent pressure of the moving plates to slide a bit easier, thus creating swarms of small quakes such as we are experiencing. The quakes may be many miles away from the disposal wells; it's not yet predictable.

That suggests that, rather than fearing all fracking, we should attempt to locate and ban those "certain critical locations" for disposal wells and thus reduce the impact on the fault lines.

That, however, might be a sensible approach. And it definitely wouldn't sell any ads.

As for "who would insure" against liability, it's always true that when there's a buck to be made, someone will step up and offer to make it.

Jim, I am confused by your assertion that "only three persons have died due to nuclear-power incidents".

List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_t oll)

Chernobyl disaster[edit]

4,000 fatalities[1][2] – Chernobyl disaster, Ukraine, April 26, 1986. 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers and nine children with thyroid cancer) and it is estimated that there were 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people.[3]

Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[4] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[5] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl
Kyshtym disaster[edit]

The Kyshtym disaster, which occurred at Mayak in the Soviet Union, was rated as a level 6 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the third most severe incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima. Because of the intense secrecy surrounding Mayak, it is difficult to estimate the death toll of Kyshtym. One book claims that "in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident."[11] By contrast, only 6,000 death certificates have been found for residents of the Tech riverside between 1950 and 1982 from all causes of death,[12] though perhaps the Soviet study considered a larger geographic area affected by the airborne plume. The most commonly quoted estimate is 200 deaths due to cancer, but the origin of this number is not clear. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that around 49 to 55 cancer deaths among riverside residents can be associated to radiation exposure.[12] This would include the effects of all radioactive releases into the river, 98% of which happened long before the 1957 accident, but it would not include the effects of the airborne plume that was carried north-east.[13] The area closest to the accident produced 66 diagnosed cases of chronic radiation syndrome, providing the bulk of the data about this condition.[14]

Windscale fire[edit]

33+ cancer fatalities (estimated by UK government)[15][16] – Windscale, United Kingdom, October 8, 1957. The Windscale fire resulted when uranium metal fuel ignited inside plutonium production piles; surrounding dairy farms were contaminated.[15][16]

Other accidents[edit]
17 fatalities – Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, August 2000 – March 2001. Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal doses of radiation.[17][18]
13 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica, 1996. 114 patients received an overdose of radiation from a Cobalt-60 source that was being used for radiotherapy.[19]
11 fatalities – Radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza, Spain, December 1990. Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy; 27 patients were injured.[20]
10 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident, August 10, 1985. 49 people suffered radiation injuries.[21]
10 fatalities – Columbus radiotherapy accident, 1974–1976, 88 injuries from Cobalt-60 source.[18][22]
9 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-27 reactor accident, 24 May 1968. 83 people were injured.[18]
8 fatalities – Soviet submarine K-19 reactor accident, July 4, 1961. More than 30 people were over-exposed to radiation.[20]
8 fatalities – Radiation accident in Morocco, March 1984.[23]
7 fatalities – Houston radiotherapy accident, 1980.[18][22]
5 fatalities – Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR, October 5, 1982. 13 injuries.[18]
4 fatalities – Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, August 9, 2004. Hot water and steam leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).[24]
4 fatalities – Goiânia accident, September 13, 1987. 249 people received serious radiation contamination from lost radiotherapy source.[25]
4 fatalities – Radiation accident in Mexico City, 1962.
3 fatalities – SL-1 accident (US Army) 1961.
3 fatalities – Samut Prakan radiation accident: Three deaths and ten injuries resulted when a radiation-therapy unit was dismantled, February 2000.[26]
2 fatalities – Tokaimura nuclear accident, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Japan, September 30, 1999.[27]
2 fatalities - Meet Halfa, Egypt, May 2000; two fatalities due to radiography accident.[28]
1 fatality – Mayapuri radiological accident, India, April 2010.[26]
1 fatality – Daigo Fukuryū Maru March 1, 1954
1 fatality – Louis Slotin May 21, 1946
1 fatality – Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., August 21, 1945 at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
1 fatality – Cecil Kelley criticality accident, December 30, 1958 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.[29]
1 fatality - Operator error at Wood River Junction nuclear facility, 1964, Rhode Island, Robert Peabody dies 49 hours later
1 fatality – Malfunction INES level 4 at RA2 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1983, operator Osvaldo Rogulich dies days later.
1 fatality - San Salvador, El Salvador, 1989; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[28]
1 fatality - Soreq, Israel, 1990; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at 60Co irradiation facility.[28]
1 fatality - Tammiku, Estonia, 1994; one fatality from disposed 137Cs source.[28]
1 fatality - Sarov, Russia, June 1997; one fatality due to violation of safety rules