Today’s 2.7M quake Event Page. This is the 3rd quake in that area since May 10th.
I posted about a 4.3M quake that was later updated to a 4.8M on May 17th. Another earthquake in East Texas – 4.3M near Timpson
I posted about a 3.7M quake on May 10. East Texas 3.7M earthquake. This post includes a map showing the activity in the area and I easily found 2 disposal wells nearby so I posted information about those. I’m too busy to do all the research for the media but I thought that might be enough to get them started. As I mentioned in that post, Louisiana sends there drilling waste to Texas for disposal and Shelby County is in a convenient location so it’s not rocket science to suspect there might be more wells in the area.
Here is some additional research sent in by a reader:
I came across some interesting paperwork related to one of the injection wells there in Shelby County. I’m not sure of the significance of any of this, or if you already know of it, but I thought I would send it along.
These are not the same wells or operators that you identified. I did not see entries for those.
I did a search for something like “permits disposal wells TCEQ” and then eventually came across this page.
Which is some type of RRC index of actions taken regarding disposal wells, and Im not at all clear as to how exactly they are sorted out, but I did find references to three disposal wells there in Shelby Co. . . . I looked these applications over a little, as well as some from other counties, Wise, Tarrant, Erath, etc . . . .and many of these were opposed by neighbors, but the RRC Examiner rubber stamped all the applications, it seemed like to me, pretty much.
But there was one that grabbed my attention.
This “docket” seems to stand out, as the RRC “Technical Permitting Staff” actually denied the permit originally, and expressed concerns about over-pressurization of that formation, and of threats to usable water supplies. No matter, of course, the Examiner just rubber stamped it anyway.
“Common Disposal, LLC requests authority pursuant to Statewide Rule 9 to operate Well No. 3 on its Common SWD Lease in Shelby County as a commercial disposal well.”
“The two commercial disposal wells within the ten mile radius are the Marathon Oil Company USA Bridges well and the Common Disposal SWD No.1. The Marathon Disposal well is a private well that only disposes of water from Marathon leases. The Common Disposal well is servicing wells to the west from the SWD No. 1 and is operating near capacity . . . . .
The Carrizo Wilcox aquifer is a very large freshwater aquifer which outcrops over virtually all of Panola and Shelby Counties. Staff is concerned about protection of this water resource in light of the number of disposal wells in various stages of the permitting process in Shelby County . . .
The Technical Permitting Section staff administratively denied the permit application in part due to their concerns “over the potential for the Rodessa formation to become over pressurizedue to the proliferation of disposal wells injecting at high rates into the Rodessa within the area of the Sabine uplift.”. . . . . .
At the time of the hearing, there were 17 commercial disposal wells within a 10 mile radius permitted into the Rodessa/ Fredricksburg in the Joaquin area, with numerous other commercial applications pending. The Joaquin area has a large concentration of commercial disposal wells due to its proximity to a produced saltwater pipeline carrying produced water from Louisiana. The pipeline was bored under a narrow section of the Sabine River near Joaquin, Texas.
There is no produced saltwater pipeline in existence near the proposed Common disposal well as the Sabine River is too wide to make it practical. In some parts of Shelby and Panola Counties wells are known to exist with inadequate cement across the Rodessa. The number of pending applications for Rodessa disposal, in conjunction with existing disposal wells in the Joaquin area, may result in pressure increases in the Rodessa sufficient to raise fluid to the usable quality water zone in offsetting wells which do not have production casing cemented across the Rodessa. Injected fluids would not be confined to the Rodessa in such circumstances.”