Published on:

Julia Trigg Crawford has waged a well-publicized fight to prevent condemnation of an easement across her farm for the XL Keystone Pipeline.  On August 27, the 6th Court of Appeals in Texarkana denied her appeal of TransCanada Keystone Pipeline’s award of an easement over her property.  Crawford has vowed to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeals’ opinion says that Ms. Crawford had two arguments: first, that the Texas statutes granting pipelines condemnation authority do not apply to interstate pipelines; and second, that Keystone had failed to meet the showing required by the Texas Supreme Court in Texas Riceland Partners v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, 363 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex. 2012) that the pipeline must show “a reasonable probability … that the pipeline will at some point after construction serve the public by transporting gas for one or more customers who will either retain ownership of their gas or sell it to parties other than the carrier.” The Texarkana court held that Keystone had met that burden. The court also held that the relevant Texas statutes do grant condemnation authority to interstate common carrier pipelines.

The portion of the XL Keystone pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to Port Arthur, Texas is nearing completion.  That segment of the pipeline has been able to proceed even though the Obama administration has not yet approved the segment of the system that would carry heavy crude from Canada across the northern segment of the XL Pipeline system.

The Supreme Court’s Denbury opinion initially caused significant consternation in the pipeline industry and generated unsuccessful efforts in the last Texas legislative session to amend Texas condemnation statutes to facilitate pipeline condemnations.  The Crawford case is an indication that the industry’s fears that Denbury would significantly impair pipeline construction in Texas are unfounded and that Texas appellate courts have been able to apply Denbury without much trouble.

Published on:

I subscribe to a news clip service on the oil and gas industry, where I get a lot of my ideas for this blog. Almost half of the news stories for August 20 had something to do with hydraulic fracturing (“fracing” or “fracking” – the latter spelling seems to have become predominant in the media, although the industry continues to use the former). Most of the fracing stories have to do with the controversy over its environmental consequences – is it safe or not? Does it reduce carbon emissions or not? Does it pollute groundwater or not? Does it need more regulation or not?  Recently the debate over fracing is bubbling up in Europe, expecially the UK, and in the California legislature.

An interesting article reflecting on the debate is in The Guardian, titled “Fracking debate: what does the battle for lead-free air teach us?” The author compares the current debate to past debates over the toxicity of lead — the discovery in the 18th century that lead was poisonous when ingested, and the more recent debate over the safety of lead in gasoline. In both instances environmentalists warned of its danger, the industry opposed its elimination, and politicians waffled.  The article’s conclusion:

So what lessons can we draw from the story of lead? First, that society will enthusiastically adopt new technology without considering the consequences. Second, that you cannot rely on industry to act in the public interest, even when their practices are going to pollute the entire planet. Third, that politicians are no more responsive to issues of public health than they were in the 18th century. Fourth, that remedial action only happens when individuals make their voices heard above the clamour of vested interest. And finally disinformation is a standard industry tactic whenever profits are under threat.

I’m not sure that the current fracing debate is exactly analogous to the history of lead contamination, or that environmentalists are always right in their conclusions any more than that industry is always disseminating disinformation; but I do agree that it is important for politicians and the public to pay heed to the debate and seek the truth. Much is at stake, and the demand for energy, the driving force behind all of the controversy, is insatiable.

Published on:

Some big horizontal wells have begun producing in Zavala County from the Buda formation (below the Eagle Ford) that may open up Zavala County for additional wells comparable to the best Eagle Ford Wells. This Hughes well, now having a history of production for a year, shows no sign of letting up:

Hughes Heitz.JPG

Here’s another Buda well, completed by Sage Energy:

Sage Mills.JPG

Here’s a well recently completed by Texas American Resources, headquartered right here in Austin:


 Good news for those holding acreage in Zavala County.


Published on:

Here is the Washington Post’s review of Josh Fox’s sequel documentary Gasland Part II, recently shown on HBO.  I’ve previously written about Fox’s controversial criticisms of hydraulic fracturing, including a “counter-documentary” called FrackNation. In following news coverage of the growth of shale exploration and development in the popular media, I have learned that the media does not do a good job of covering complex issues like hydraulic fracturing, global warming, and gun control, issues that are easily exploited by parties on both sides of the issue by invoking scare tactics and consipiracy theories to frighten the public. I have also seen how such complex, controversial topics are politicized, like so much of public discourse today, into black and white, red and blue, with no middle ground, making it very difficult for the ordinary citizen to become informed about the facts and policy issues that political leaders should be investigating and deciding. Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him?

Published on:

I recently ran across an article on the Energy In Depth website titled “Turning Natural Gas Into Water: Hydraulic Fracturing Doesn’t Deplete Water Supplies.”  Energy In Depth is a website of the Independent Petroleum Association of America dedicated to “a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resource base ” The article responds to an argument made by many organizations concerned about the large quantities of water used in fracing. The concern is that, while many uses of water return that water to the water cycle, water used in fracing is usually disposed of by injecting it underground, where it will never return to the water cycle.

Energy In Depth’s response to this argument is that, while injecting the used frac water — called “flowback” — does remove that water from the water cycle, the burning of the gas (or oil) produced by the wells creates more water than was used in the fracing of the wells.  So, the argument goes, fracing of wells actually “creates” new water that is added to the water cycle.  EID’s article goes on to calculate that, while a typical Marcellus gas well will remove 4 million gallons of water from the water cycle, that well will produce two billion cubic feet of gas which, when burned, will yield about 22 million gallons of “new” water.  Within the well’s first six months of production, the gas it produces will create more than 4 million gallons of water when burned as fuel.  Problem solved!

I asked a hydrologist friend of mine to look at EID’s calculations. He agreed that their math is correct, but he cautioned that the problem is not so simple.  EID’s argument assumes that the energy created by burning the natural gas from EID’s typical well would not have been created by the burning of other fossil fuels.  If, in other words, the gas is burned to create electricity, and if that electricity would have been created by burning coal if the well had not been drilled, then the net result is that water has been lost to the water cycle by injecting the flowback from the well.

EID’s argument also fails to consider local conditions. Almost all of the water used for fracing in the Eagle Ford and in the Permian Basin in West Texas is groundwater. Those groundwater resources are already being depleted much faster than they are being recharged, mostly from agricultural and municipal demand, but exacerbated by the current drought and the demands of the oil industry. Even though the burning of the oil and gas produced from those areas does produce new water molecules into the water cycle, that fact does not replenish the aquifers or increase the chances of rain in those arid parts of our state.

The US Energy Information Administration recently projected that world consumption of energy from all fuel sources would increase by 56% through 2040. Most of that increase will come from burning fossil fuels.

EIA World Energy Use.JPG

Burning all of that fossil fuel will certainly create lots of “new” water.  Is that a good thing for the environment?

Energy generation uses huge quantities of water. Nuclear plants as well as electric generation using fossil fuels require water for coolant. While that water stays in the water cycle, it is nevertheless a demand that must be met, and in Texas that demand is increasing exponentially. Only wind and solar energy need no water to generate electricity, and – even though Texas is the US leader in wind energy — wind and solar are as yet a small part of electricity production.

recent article in the Christian Science Monitor calls for recyclying of frac water. Some companies are experimenting with use of brackish (salty) water aquifers. EID and its sponsoring companies would do well to increase industry’s efforts to reduce or eliminate use of underground water in hydraulic fracturing.


Published on:

A memorial service, open to the public, will be held today for wildcatter and philanthropist George P. Mitchell – actually, three memorial services, as befits one of the great Texans of the 20th century.  The Houston Chronicle in fact named him Houstonian of the Century. By all accounts, he was not only an entreprenurial genius, but a kind and generous man, a family man, and a man who gave back to his communities in many ways.

In one of his last public interviews, Mr. Mitchell addressed the issue of the safety and environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.  I wrote about that interview.  He said that he supports tough regulation of independent operators. “I’ve had too much experience running independents,” Mitchell said. “They’re wild people. You just can’t control them. And if it doesn’t do it right, penalize the oil and gas people. Get tough with them.”

Last year, Mr. Mitchell and Mayor Michael Bloomberg published an op ed piece in the New York Times supporting tighter regulation of the industry. What they said bears repeating. They pledged that their foundations

will support organizations that seek to work with states and industries to develop common-sense regulations that will protect the environment — and ensure that the industry can thrive.

We will encourage better state regulation of fracking around five key principles:

Disclosing all chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process;

Optimizing rules for well construction and operation;

Minimizing water consumption, protecting groundwater and ensuring proper disposal of wastewater;

Improving air pollution controls, including capturing leaking methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and

Reducing the impact on roads, ecosystems and communities.

The latest research, including peer-reviewed studies out of Carnegie Mellon University and Argonne National Laboratory, suggests that if properly extracted and distributed, the impact of natural gas on the climate is significantly less than that of coal. Safely fracking natural gas can mean healthier communities, a cleaner environment and a reliable domestic energy supply right now.

We can frack safely if we frack sensibly. That may not make for a great bumper sticker. It does make for good environmental and economic policy.

Not words from a stereotypical Texas wildcatter. The industry would to well to follow his advice.

Published on:


 Those who visit my blog regularly know that I love charts and graphs. Below is a Sankey diagram produced by Lawrence Livermore Labs for the Department of Energy.  Sankey diagrams are named after Irish Captain Matthew Henry Phineas Riall Sankey, who used this type of diagram in 1898 in a publication on the energy efficiency of a steam engine.  The diagram below may also be viewed here.   

In the diagram, sources of energy are on the left, uses of energy are on the right. The first remarkable thing that struck me is how much energy is “rejected.” Most of the petroleum used in transportation, and most of the fuel used to generate electricity, is rejected. A huge loss by inefficiency. Avoiding even a small amount of this inefficiency would in effect create a new source of energy.

Note also the small contributions of renewable energy sources — biomass, solar, hydro and wind — to the total. And the as-yet very small contribution of natural gas to the consumption of energy for transportation.

Livermore Sankey Diagram.JPG

Published on:

For those following the Klotzman protest of EOG’s allocation well permit (our firm represents the protestants), here are the exceptions to the examiners’ proposal for decision filed by EOG and by Intervenors Devon, Pioneer, Laredo Petroleum and BP America:

EOG Exceptions to PFD.pdf

Devon et al Exceptions to PFD.pdf

Here is a link to the proposal for decision:

2013-06-25 PFD EOG Klotzman (2).pdf

EOG has called on other operators and industry organizations to file objections to the PFD, and they have responded. Letters opposing the PFD have been filed by Diamondback Energy, Halcon Resources, EP Energy, Oxy, Crimson, XTO, Burlington, Texas OIl and Gas Association, Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, Panhandle Producers and Royalty Owners Association, and Permian Basin Petroleum Association. Clearly, this PFD has hit a nerve. A typical letter, from Marathon, claims that the PFD would “prevent the drilling of countless horizontal wells throughout the State and cause tremendous, otherwise producible, reserves to be wasted and left in the ground.” The sky is falling.

Operators say that more than 100 allocation well permits have been granted to some 17 operators across the State.  According to the PFD, between April 27, 2010 and the date of the Klotzman hearing on December 3, 2012, 55 permits were approved for “allocation” wells.  During that same time period, the Commission granted 18,335 permits for horizontal wells. So for that time period, allocation well permits were three tenths of 1 percent of all permits granted. More than 4,000 permits were issued by the Commission for Eagle Ford wells alone in 2012, and some 2,000 Eagle Ford permits have been issued this year. The Commission issued a total of 22,479 drilling permits in 2012. Based on these figures, it hardly seems possible that the Commission’s decision not to issue allocation well permits would cause “tremendous reserves” to be wasted.

Contact Information