R
Ridgerunner
Guest
He would still have to pump it to the surface, and from a place that doesn’t get much rainfall. So he’s talking about depleting the “fossil water” below the Panhandle. Typical robber baron stuff.
- Status
A
andrewstx
Guest
Amarillo is on the Ogallala aquifer as am I. Surely the aquifer is not going to dry up due to fracking? My well is doing just fine thank you and the pump has only been replaced once.I’m sorry. I didn’t mention Amarillo. Nor did I mention Memphis. I mentioned the Ozarks and Dallas. Dallas is about 425 miles away by road from Branson, Missouri, where there’s a lot of water. As the crow flies, it would be less. Branson is about 300’ higher in elevation than Dallas. The Springfield Plain, where much of the water comes from is higher still; about 800 feet higher than Dallas/Fort Worth.
Amarillo will need to find its own water. I can’t help them.Might not be anything anybody can do to improve the water situation in the Llano Estocada. The rainfall at Dallas isn’t all that bad, but having said that, I’ll bet there is a water table “dimple” under and around Dallas that would cause you to catch your breath, it would be so deep.
But I will say this. If there was some way to carry off flood waters in the White River basin or in the headwaters of Grand Lake in Oklahoma, I’ll bet there would be no argument from the state authorities about it.
Well, then, KC is farther away from Dallas than the Springfield Plain, but since St. Louis is not much higher than Dallas, forget the Mississippi. Missouri River water could be sent to Dallas from around KC, which is about 600 feet higher than Dallas. The route wouldn’t be so far away from Springfield or Branson that a “feeder” line couldn’t be extended to it.
But you really don’t need enormous differences in elevation for water to flow. I likes to go downhill. Most of the Roman aqueducts sloped very gradually, almost imperceptibly.
Truth be known, I’ll bet it would be no more difficult to do that than it is to send most of the Colorado River to L.A., Las Vegas and all the irrigated farms in the California deserts.
B
bsroufek
Guest
If you look up fracking on the internet, you’ll see that originally water was used but it uses so much water that they began using a natural gas solution (with various chemicals).
To even attempt fracking in an arid zone with people dependent upon the underground water is extremely foolish and destructive.
To note, the US alone uses something like 18 million barrels of oil a day. In order to get even a quarter of that out of the ground via fracking, you would need many millions of gallons of water/natural gas EACH DAY.
Fracking is not viable and is very destructive to the environment, not to mention the workmen.
S
SamH
Guest
Not viable?
At current US pace fracking will enable the US to be energy independent in 10 to 15 years. OPEC is scared to death about fracking.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Apparently, at least some fracking operations recycle and re-use the water employed in the process.
And as you mention, some have found substitutes.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
There is the issue regarding climate change and fossil fuel energy: coal and fracking require huge quantities of water, but climate change is causing increased droughts in place like Texas, reducing that water supply, and ergo reducing the energy supply. So it is a matter of energy consumption (along with increased droughts from climate change) greatly reducing water supplies, and reduced water supplies reducing our ability to create coal and fracking-based energy. I think nuke also requires a lot of water.
See:
stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/07/18/five-ways-climate-change-threatens-energy-in-texas/
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/20130710-Energy-Sector-Vulnerabilities-Report.pdf
Luckily Texas has an enormous amount of sun and wind – well beyond “ample.” We’ve been on 100% wind energy for over a decade, since we moved here, and now drive our Volt mostly on the wind, except for our trip to Houston last Spring break & my yearly Carmelite retreat at the Benedictine Monastery near Rio Grande City (50 miles from here, but the sisters let me charge up over there), and a few trips to the beach each year.
Now, as I write, we have our certified solar installer installing panels and the reversible meter to generate about half of our electricity. And if we generate more in a month than we consume, we can apply it to next month’s Green Mountain bill at equal rate.
Anyone living in Texas with a south-sloping roof & paying over $5000 in taxes, this is a great financial opportunity while helping protect creation, as Pope Francis has called us to do. Our total cost is about $29,000+. The gov will be giving us a 30% tax break next year; AEP (the base provider for our Green Mountain electricity) is giving us a $7500 rebate, and the solar company is giving us a $7500 discount. So our total net cost is about $8000, and we’ll be saving $1000 per year – that’s a 12.5% return on investment. And a really great way to lower our living costs now and on into the future (we’re also saving about $90 a month on our Volt) as we head toward retirement in a year or so.
If anyone wants the contact info of our solar installer, contact me and I’ll give it. He came highly recommended by folks here who have gone solar. He is based in Corpus Christi and I think can travel at least 3 hours from there to do the installations.
Regarding water shortages, there are ways to save water and get more water:
See:
stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/07/18/five-ways-climate-change-threatens-energy-in-texas/
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/07/f2/20130710-Energy-Sector-Vulnerabilities-Report.pdf
Luckily Texas has an enormous amount of sun and wind – well beyond “ample.” We’ve been on 100% wind energy for over a decade, since we moved here, and now drive our Volt mostly on the wind, except for our trip to Houston last Spring break & my yearly Carmelite retreat at the Benedictine Monastery near Rio Grande City (50 miles from here, but the sisters let me charge up over there
), and a few trips to the beach each year.Now, as I write, we have our certified solar installer installing panels and the reversible meter to generate about half of our electricity. And if we generate more in a month than we consume, we can apply it to next month’s Green Mountain bill at equal rate.
Anyone living in Texas with a south-sloping roof & paying over $5000 in taxes, this is a great financial opportunity while helping protect creation, as Pope Francis has called us to do. Our total cost is about $29,000+. The gov will be giving us a 30% tax break next year; AEP (the base provider for our Green Mountain electricity) is giving us a $7500 rebate, and the solar company is giving us a $7500 discount. So our total net cost is about $8000, and we’ll be saving $1000 per year – that’s a 12.5% return on investment. And a really great way to lower our living costs now and on into the future (we’re also saving about $90 a month on our Volt) as we head toward retirement in a year or so.
If anyone wants the contact info of our solar installer, contact me and I’ll give it. He came highly recommended by folks here who have gone solar. He is based in Corpus Christi and I think can travel at least 3 hours from there to do the installations.
Regarding water shortages, there are ways to save water and get more water:
- Before one’s area runs out of water, engage in serious conservation & efficient use of it (which could lower one’s consumption by at least half) – lowflow showerheads, toilets, etc. Water yard early morning or evening and not on windy days. Xeriscape (drought-resistant plants). etc.
- Gray water (from bath, sink, washing machine) to water garden
- Rainwater storage in rainbarrels or cisterns…which can at least be used for the garden.
- one lady I know has planted tropical plants around the house, where the gutters feed them water, and desert-type plants out further in the yard.
- solar desalinization distilling plants along the coast.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One is not greatly surprised to hear they have droughts in Texas.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You may with hydrogen though.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
My impression is that the Ogallala aquifer is huge, underlying an immense area. In some places, it’s depleted far down. In some places, it isn’t. I have read that it is being depleted faster than it’s being recharged by rainfall. That might be only in some places, not the whole aquifer.
A city or a large irrigated area will cause a “dimple” in any water horizon of any size. I don’t know how long it would take, say, water from central Kansas to equalize with a “dimple” underlying, say, Amarillo. But it’s probably an immensely long time.
S
SamH
Guest
Correction!!!
One SHOULD not be greatly surprised to hear they have droughts in Texas.
E
estesbob
Guest
Because pipelines are evilWhy bother? The White River in Mo and Ar floods almost every year. There are other rivers like that. The Mississippi also often carries excess water. Why not just pipe it down to Tx?
Of course, that would be a mighty big pipeline to do much good, but Dallas isn’t all that far away, and surely such pipelines could at least provide water to Dallas/Ft Worth.
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Not worth the kind of environmental and infrastructure damage it causes especially with the blind support it receives from our politicians. Our pinhead of a Governor was still singing the praises of fracking after their injection wells caused 11 earthquakes near Youngstown.
P
pnewton
Guest
That’s the Guardian for you. This is one of the all time dumbest articles I have seen. The wells are running dry because there is a lack of rain. Texas has been in drought conditions for years. The last two hurricanes turned north and east. I think it was three years ago we broke all records. Since then things get a little better, then it gets drier. Anyone that lives here knows what we need: tropical rain, in some form or fashion. I would prefer a tropical wave or tropical storm, but it needs to move west. The drought is due to lack of rain, not how water is used for industrial purposes. If there was no fracking, there would still be a drought and some wells would still run dry.
We are looking into desalinization here. Big deal. One simply must change with the times, though West Texas towns becoming ghost towns over dry wells is as old as the West.
We are looking into desalinization here. Big deal. One simply must change with the times, though West Texas towns becoming ghost towns over dry wells is as old as the West.
A
andrewstx
Guest
I live in the county, not the town of Andrews. People in the town use groundwater and it’s not limited in use. I xeriscape except for my roses in containers. I think I have a very nice looking xeriscaped garden, with hardly a drop of water used except for the roses.
But people around here are lazy as I see it. They don’t really water, and they never prune their roses.
Of course I do have the advantage of being a Certified Texas Master Gardener. They taught me the appropriate plants to xeriscape with.
A
andrewstx
Guest
Actually the drought seems to be lifting. But I think that because of the ahl bidness many more people live here than the ecoscape seems to be able to support.
But I’m not here due to choice, my parents put me here because Dad worked for Phillips Petroleum. We are in an oil boom now and that is the only industry locally. Once the oil eventually runs out all that will be left are ghost towns. Including Midland the home of two Bush Presidents.
O
Orogeny
Guest
No, you didn’t mention Amarillo or Memphis. How about San Angelo or El Paso? You didn’t mention them, either. The fact is is that water is not nearly as big a problem in the Dallas area as it is in other parts of Texas. Most of East Texas isn’t having any problems with water and isn’t forecast to have one in the future.
The parts of Texas that need the water the most are very far away from the Ozarks, the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and all the other areas east of the state. Pipelines big enough to move the volume of water needed are prohibitively expensive (see my post about Boone Pickens’ plan) EVEN if water does flow downhill. Most of Texas isn’t downhill from places with excess water.
If moving water from the Ozarks was a viable solution, there would already be proposals in-place. To the best of my knowledge (and I pay attention to this problem here in Texas), there is no such proposal.
The Metroplex is on surface water only and has been for some time.Amarillo will need to find its own water. I can’t help them.
Which of those areas are uphill from the source?
I’ll bet that the cost to do an aqueduct like that used for Colorado River water would cost exponentially more now than it did when the one in the western states was built.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well, he isn’t doing it any more. He sold the water rights a couple of years ago because he couldn’t profit from the water because it costs too much to send it via pipeline to an area that needs it (or, more specifically, is willing to pay for it).
The Ogallala in that part of the Panhandle has plenty of water and very few users.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Since you clearly are an expert on hydraulic fracturing, how often does a well have to be fractured?
It is not only viable, it is necessary AND it is not destructive to the environment.
I don’t understand your statement about workmen. Are you suggesting that hydraulic fracturing is dangerous to workmen? Are you aware of the industry in which those workmen work?
You do understand that hydraulic fracturing has been around a long, long time, right?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
You are mostly correct. In some areas the recharge is enough to prevent depletion.
It won’t happen in the Ogallala. Water doesn’t move much at all horizontally throughout most of the aquifer. Also, while it is one large aquifer, there are faults and other barriers that isolate parts of the aquifer from others.
Peace
Tim
S
SamH
Guest
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources specifically stated that there is no proven link between the drilling and the quakes. But then what do they know?
- Status