Of the 1,073 releases reported last year, about 60 percent involved oil and one-third spread brine. In about two-thirds of the cases, material was not contained to the accident site and leaked into the ground or waterways.
But the official data gives only a partial picture, Roberts said, missing an unknown number of unreported incidents.
"One, five, 10, 100? If it didn't get reported, how do you count them?" he said.
He said truckers often dump their wastewater rather than wait in line at injection wells. The Department of Mineral Resources asks companies how much brine their wells produce and how much they dispose of as waste, but its inspectors don't audit those numbers. Short of catching someone in the act, there's no way to stop illegal dumping.
The state also has no real estimate for how much fluid spills out accidentally from tanks, pipes, trucks and other equipment. Companies are supposed to report spill volumes, but officials acknowledge the numbers are often inexact or flat-out wrong. In 40 cases last year, the company responsible didn't know how much had spilled so it simply listed the volume of fluid as zero.
In one case last July, workers for Petro Harvester, a small, Texas-based oil company, noticed a swath of dead vegetation in a field near one of the company's saltwater disposal lines. The company reported the spill the next day, estimating that 12,600 gallons of brine had leaked.
When state and county officials came to assess the damage, however, they found evidence of a much larger accident. The leak, which had gone undetected for days or weeks, had sterilized about 24 acres of land. Officials later estimated the spill to be at least 2 million gallons of brine, Roberts said, which would make it the largest ever in the state.
Yet state records still put the volume at 12,600 gallons and Roberts sees no reason to change it.
"It's almost like rubbing salt in a raw wound," Roberts said, criticizing efforts to tabulate a number as "bean counting." Changing a report would not change reality, nor would it help anyone, he added. "If we try to go back and revisit the past over and over and over again, what's it going to do? Nothing good."
In a written statement, Petro Harvester said tests showed the spill had not contaminated groundwater and that it would continue monitoring the site for signs of damage. State records show the company hired a contractor to cover the land with 40 truckloads of a chemical that leaches salt from the soil.
Nearly a year later, however, even weeds won't grow in the area, said Darwin Peterson, who farms the land. While Petro Harvester has promised to compensate him for lost crops, Peterson said he hasn't heard from the company in months and he doesn't expect the land to be usable for years. "It's pretty devastating," he said.
Little Enforcement
The Department of Mineral Resources and the Health Department have the authority to sanction companies that spill or dump fluids, but they rarely do.
The Department of Mineral Resources has issued just 45 enforcement actions over the last three years. Spokeswoman Alison Ritter could not say how many of those were for spills or releases, as opposed to other drilling violations, or how many resulted in fines.
The Health Department has taken just one action against an oil company in the past three years, citing Continental Resources for oil and brine spills that turned two streams into temporary toxic dumps. The department initially fined Continental $328,500, plus about $14,000 for agency costs. Ultimately, however, the state settled and Continental paid just $35,000 in fines.
See what we're tweeting about
25 Comments
Add CommentThis is just very questionable - explain how the millions of miles of asphalt roads that are just oil, sand and rock which leaches the oil out every time it rains. I see no complaints about oil spills when they re-coat the roads with oil and sand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just more scare tactics of pseudo science.
It is unbelievable that trolls like you still exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisprofit is as profit does will soon be ended by the masses.
You are the troll, not one case of damage from fracking has been proven, not one. Also, fracking does not even start until about 7000' below the surface so the the chance of damage is almost non existent. The same fracking process is used to frack water wells too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMostly scare tactics from wacko environmentalist.
The grocery stores could make a big profit selling vegetables and beef grown on frack free land. Who wants to eat food products soaked in toxic drilling waste water. Who wants to buy land after it has been fracked. Fracked land values will plummet. Soon the only safe place to buy food products from will be Vermont. This state has the foresight to ban fracking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's an old saying in table-top roleplaying game circles that goes, "whenever you offer the players two alternatives they will always come up with a third.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink of the people in this story as being the players; think of the two choices you offered as the two alternatives; now imagine all the "third choices" they might come up with.
Remember, in any game of "Would You Rather" there's always the choice of killing the person who asked the question.
""There's no enforcement," said Keller, 50, an avid outdoorsman who has spent his career managing Lake Sakakawea, a reservoir created by damming the Missouri River. "None."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHint....that dam did more damage to the the natural environment than all the drilling in the state.
Yes, fossil energy extraction monitoring should be diligent.However, the hypocrisy is dripping with irony... farming isby far the biggest environmental rapist in North America.
Unbelievable! Three out of the first five comments are from people who work for the oil companies, and commenter #3 must be the conservative (R)CEO of those oil companies. How can anyone deny this is happening when the evidence is right there in front of them and say that these people are lying on the oil companies just to try and get some money from the oil companies? The republicans must be the stupidest people in America. "Drill Baby Drill"!!! and don't look behind curtain #3 or curtain #2 or curtain #1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm surprised you didn't suggest they close down all the farms and build four or five nuclear power plants on the land and use that dammed up water to store the radioactive waste from the power plants and the fracking waste from the oil companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy God,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe E=GREEN logic is dripping with false premises and pure emotion based scare tactics supported by ZERO FACTS-
Fracking will not effect the value of land anymore than highway [oil soaked sand and rock roads] frontage is reduced in value. The food grow next to the highway is somehow less that produced off dirt roads. Find a high school near you that teaches night chemistry classes and take them.
You sound like you are high on frack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJack77
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypical left wing nutter - no facts so attack the other party and call names - get some facts and come back you are boring ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Mac
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are at least 27 legal cases against companies using the fracking technique that have either shown that fracking caused damage or the company settled with the person bringing the lawsuit. Most are from contaminated drinking water that was caused by the fluids used for fracking - alpha methylstyrene - or methane. You might want to get your fact straight before claiming "not one case of damage from fracking has been proven, not one."
Please provide the case that has been settled by a Judge and court findings of fact and legal opinions. Like auto accidents many law suits and not many court awards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll California and Arizona farm products and animal products are FRACK FREE and so me are even free range.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso just pay more to be FRACK SAFE - get real.
Profitsup - Let me get this straight.....your argument is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is no legal case against fracking settled by a judge it is not an issue.
Correct?
The companies involved with fracking settle out of court and have the records sealed for good reason. It would be a PR disaster for them to allow one case to go to court and be decided by a judge.
Let me ask you a question. If you live where you get your drinking water from a well would you allow fracking to take place?
And rather than call people left wing nutter, why not engage in a discussion with out the sophomoric name calling.
The other party was the name caller - I responded with factual questions but not a single answer. Like your current post - you have no evidence there have been any case where the settlement or claim did not stem from a accidental spill. The wells that have been posted all around by the E=GREEN have been proven to have the issues prior to the fracking process was even invented.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTests have been run and zero fracking chemicals were present in the problem wells. Now are we having a conversation. It seems rather one sided to me as I will provide facts and no one else presents a single fact.
Brine water is better known as salt water. There are traces of some chemicals but the concentrations are small. But it does not really matter. There are millions of gallons of salt water produced daily. It is all hauled off and disposed of in the Dakota formation. The Dakota formation about 5500 ft deep, equal to a 550 story bilding below the surface, and is over 60 Million years old. The capacity of the Dakota formation is practically unlimited. The "quaility" of the water injected into the Dakota formation is better than what is already there. The water in the Dakota formation is loaded with salt and other chemicals that mother nature put there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are few cases where a truck driver disposed of a load of salt water improperly. These are few and far between. The reason there are only 50 violations in three years is that is all there were. When caught the truck driver never works in the oil patch again. If the county sheriff catches him he is in jail.
People who make rash statements about fracing don't care what the facts are they just want all of humanity to live in a idealized green world that cannot exist in caves I guess.
Thank you for you have backed up my posts. The E=GREENS are all about rumors and just stopping any and all advancements in harvesting America natural resources. They have no factual evidence except unlimited legal finances from the government using the ACLU and EPA, EEOC, and other agency rules and regulations [not actually laws]which many have been reversed in courts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You are the troll, not one case of damage from fracking has been proven, not one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the article fool. You trolls who make these ridiculous assertions apparently can't even read.
You sound like Bart Simpson. "I didn't do it. Nobody saw me and you can't prove anything."
An even more asinine comment is from Profitsup who said, "Fracking will not effect the value of land anymore than highway [oil soaked sand and rock roads] frontage is reduced in value."
As if his name wasn't enough to betray his motives, he actually believes that contaminated farmland and rivers makes the land worth more after they sucked out all the mineral resources and made it worthless for future farming.
Farmland is not a highway and a highway is not for growing crops. Only a brainwashed moron would think otherwise.
I don't know about you, but I don't grow vegetables next to the road. Only oilmen could be that stupid.
Dear Flea,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou lack of technical education yells out ignorance - Fracking is less damaging to the land [soils] than OIL BASED ASPHALT used all over the nation. For this is the source of oil in rivers and deltas. Now that being said oil has a rather large number of bacteria that EAT the oil so it is broken down and becomes harmless food for other life forms.
You can surly blurt out the nasty hateful names another proof that you lack an organized mind that can actually gasp complex thoughts.
A dog is not considered a good dog because he is a good barker. A man is not considered a good man because he is a good talker. BUDDHA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Academy Award nominated documentary "Gasland" shows the devastating effects fracking is already having on real people nationwide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dZe1AeH0Qz8
Most of this article is not true, These companys are doing everything they can do to keep the spills down, and they are over the top about safety. I know this first hand. Do you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese companies all have their little worker bees that know first hand what is going on. If I was poor enough and dumb enough to have to work for one I would lie about it all too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFlea your dog has run off and left you abandoned at the altar of fools beliefs. Get facts or get going - you are Obama light - lie lie lie and then attack those that provide proofs that expose your lies. LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout profits there are no taxes and no welfare - all will need to work or starve 0 Oh no!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this