Ellington

John McGowan's company is definitely obsessed with the JFP's comprehensive coverage of their concept—so much so that they sent a letter to the Northside Sun about it that appeared today. The letter complains, rightly, that we (I, actually) used the word "chemicals" instead of "wastewater" in the Most Intriguing 2009 write-up about Mr. McGowan (which I have already corrected both in the paper and in the online story here). However, the paper is not pointing to Adam Lynch's original story about the Galveston Bay incident, or to Mr. McGowan's statements about environmentalists, which were in this story in the JFP last fall. I apologize again for using the wrong word in the Intriguing write-up, and I encourage everyone to read Adam's story for a fuller picture.

You can also read our full, multi-year coverage of the Two Lakes controversy, as well as other stories related to Pearl flood control on our Pearl River blog

Previous Comments

ID

155075

Comment

Well, the positive from this is that The Sun is brining attention to true reporting of intriguing stories. They are shining a light onto the subject of alternative newspapers. When they think they threw a punch, they threw attention to the pub. That can't hurt huh? Thanks Sun!

Author

Langston Moore

Date

2010-01-14T12:17:13-06:00

ID

155076

Comment

Very true, Learning. Every mention, every blog post, every evidence of obsession out there gets people here to read our very heavily researched stories. We'll take it. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-01-14T12:23:05-06:00

ID

155085

Comment

For those really interesting in delving into this, the ruling in this case from the Fifth Circuit can be found here. One of the first distinctions I would suggest is the idea that "produced water" is the same as "salt water" as asserted by Charles Johnson. He's the geologist, not me, but in the court documents, produced water is defined thusly: 1. "Produced Water" This lawsuit concerns the legality of the disposal of a by product of the oil and gas production process: "produced water." Produced water originates as source water trapped in underground geological formations with oil and gas. When a well is drilled into a formation, the extraction of oil and gas also brings the water to the surface. During extraction, chemicals used in the drilling process become mixed with the water. The result is produced water.(1) Part of the production process involves the separation of the produced water from the extracted oil and gas. After separation, the operator must dispose of the produced water. The available methods of disposal include reinjection into an underground reservoir, land disposal, evaporation, and discharge into surface waters. Produced water is the highest volume waste source in offshore oil and gas production operations.(2) Note the "re-injection" vs. "discharge" distinction. Cedar Point was discharging into the Galveston, for which they were not permitted. That's what the Sierra Club sued to stop. In the "facts of the case" section: Cedar Point began to discharge produced water into Galveston Bay at approximately the same time that it began production from state well 1876. This discharge continued through the trial of this action in May 1994, except that the discharge was temporarily suspended between April and August of 1992. Throughout this period, the average daily discharge ranged between 500 to 1200 barrels per day.(6) Cedar Point's produced water contained, inter alia, barium, benzene, zinc, chlorides, sulfate, bicarbonate, ammonia, naphthalene, phenolic, radium, oil and grease. Cedar Point disposed of its produced water in the following manner: (1) the oil, gas, and water mixture produced from state well 1876 was piped to a platform in Galveston Bay for the first phase of separation; (2) after the initial separation, the remaining mixture was then piped to shore where more oil was separated in a series of tanks; (3) the produced water was then transferred to settling pits so that some constituents could settle out of the water; and (4) the remaining produced water was drained out of the pits and discharged through a pipe over the bulkhead into Galveston Bay.(7) http://70.86.131.22/~produced/page.php?page_name=produced_water_facts Cedar Point had apparently applied for, but not received, a permit to discharge produced water. That might have been because the EPA wasn't granting ANY permits to "Coastal Subcategory" oil fields like Cedar Point's. Whether that was because of a grand scheme by the EPA or not isn't clear, but, at least in reading the case, it doesn't appear to be pertinent, either, particularly when it seems the EPA *had* granted general permits to two other categories (Offshore Subcategory and Onshore Subcategory). Coastal is its own category because coastal waters tend to be used differently. A quick read of current EPA guidelines (which appear to have been codified in 1996 and amended in 2004 -- after Cedar Point's violation) suggest that produced water is generally prohibited from being discharged, presumable because produced water does, in fact, contain impurities -- generally oil and grease -- and/or levels of salination that vary from naturally occurring "salt water." http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/oilgas/index.htm The Coastal general permit covers facilities located in the bay and estuaries along the Texas Coast. Drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and produced water are all prohibited from being discharged under the Texas Coastal Oil and Gas general permit. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/pwmis/techdesc/discharge/index.html Wells in the "coastal" subcategory are generally prohibited from discharging produced water, subject to an exception for wells located in Alaska's Cook Inlet. Discharges from these wells must meet all applicable offshore standards. Cedar Point had options other than discharging produced water into the Galveston, which they failed to make happen. The judge ruled in the initial case that they were liable for that amount -- $186,000 -- but didn't hit them with any punitive damages beyond that. An interesting, and perhaps rather fair judgement, considering they felt they had attempted to become permitted, perhaps unaware that it would be nearly impossible to have their discharge permitted given their coastal status.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-01-14T13:22:41-06:00

ID

155086

Comment

(As an aside, this is a PDF of a study done in 1996 by Texas A&M;geologists -- Gig'Em Ags! -- that go into some of the basics. Things like (a.) produced water is the generally PC term for "petroleum brine," which is clearly not as palatable. And, as wells age, they tend to be higher in dissolved solids, un-extracted hydrocarbons and even radioactive materials.) So, why all the confusion around the 1992-93 timeframe for Cedar Point? It appears that EPA wasn't permitting at that time because it was going through a process of changing those rules. (What that process was -- litigation, legislation, etc., I'm not sure of.) According to the case: On January 9, 1995, EPA published a final NPDES general permit covering the discharge of produced water by operators in the "Coastal Subcategory" in Louisiana and Texas, including Cedar Point.(19) This permit imposed, inter alia, an absolute prohibition on the discharge of produced water, effective February 8, 1995. The EPA recognized that it needed to grandfather in folks who were discharging under a permit and allow them to comply with the new guidelines by building re-injection capabilities. Accordingly, the order directed the permittees to "[c]omplete all activities necessary to attain full and continuance [sic] compliance with [the "No Discharge" requirement] as soon as possible, but in no case later than January 1, 1997;" however, this order only applied to operators covered by the permit who would be discharging produced water on the effective date of the permit, February 8, 1995.(21) Cedar Point could not discharge produced water on February 8 because the district court's injunction order prevented it from doing so without penalty. Accordingly, on January 30, 1995, Cedar Point filed a motion to amend or supplement the court's final judgment to allow it to discharge produced water without penalty on the effective date of the permit and thereafter so that it could take advantage of the two-year "grace period." The district court granted this motion and amended its May 27, 1994 opinion to allow the requested discharge. Sierra Club timely filed a notice of appeal from the court's order amending the injunction. I'd love to dig further on this but MUST work; maybe later this evening. Any attorneys willing to take a swipe at it are welcome. One thing I do have to point out, though, is the Cedar Point attempts in this appeal to argue that produced water is not a pollutant. After a tortuous few pages of the court's logic, we reach this nugget (CWA=Clean Water Act): Given this support in the statute, as reinforced by EPA's own regulations, we conclude that Cedar Point's produced water is a pollutant within the meaning of the CWA.(37) Cedar Point does not dispute that it discharged this produced water into Galveston Bay without a NPDES permit. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court correctly held that Cedar Point violated 1311(a) of the CWA.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2010-01-14T13:22:53-06:00

ID

155088

Comment

"Petroleum brine"? Ewww.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-01-14T13:25:09-06:00

ID

155089

Comment

As usual, fascinating.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2010-01-14T13:26:27-06:00

ID

155090

Comment

BTW, the *most* interesting part to me about Adam's story last year was how Mr. McGowan seemed to be hankering to take on environmentalists in court, according to his own words. That's all well and good for him -- but it has long been one of the huge problems with his various lakes plans (all of which are grouped under the name "Two Lakes"). Jackson, and Mississippi, cannot afford to wait decades longer for him to fight the environmentalists in court, or to start hacking that 1996 levee plan they insisted be the only other option into something that makes sense for the here and now. I know their articulated vision has attracted a lot of people, but that doesn't make it feasible. And people love to kill the messenger (just like they did back when we warned about Frank Melton), but that just doesn't change the potential problems associated with the message.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-01-14T13:28:49-06:00

ID

155091

Comment

The case links, all, are fascinating. You should click on them, especially if you happen to be home with nothing to do. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-01-14T13:39:28-06:00

ID

155132

Comment

There is a very strange attack-the-messenger comment under the letter at the Northside Sun, accusing us of having "personal animus" toward the Two Lakes folks. Nothing could be further from the truth. We don't *know* most of them, and Mr. Mcgowan is rather charming. And we are great friends with many people who support the project. Anyone who reads the JFP knows that we don't reach our conclusions based on "personal animus." That is an absurd accusation (and the same one thrown at us years ago by Melton supporters, and it wasn't true then, either). We make our decisions based on homework, period. Plus, in this case, we're not saying that the 1996 levee plan is fabulous. We have said that the Two Lakes proposal is riddled with problems that will delay *any* flood solution for many more years if we do what some want and only support it. We are reporting both sides, and there are many people who prefer that we do as the Northside Sun does, and only report the problems with the levee plan. That would be irresponsible journalism. At this point, the majority of the levee board also agrees with us, and I really doubt it's "personal animus" on their part, either. We are all trying to have an adult, open conversation about an issue that is very difficult on all sides -- the one that should have happened back in the 1990s.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2010-01-14T18:45:22-06:00