Not in YOUR backyard?

Unless you live in Fort Worth.

Read the letter from Jim Ashford to the Fort Worth City Council, Mayor and staff. YOU can't afford not to.

Fort Worth City Council

It is my opinion the proposed Salt Water Disposal Facility is a terrible idea. I fail to understand why this item is allowed to continue being drug through the permitting system primarily by one Council person. It was a bad idea when it was proposed, and the more that is known about the chemicals in produced water, the worse it gets.

The thought of 1200 barrels* of produced water being evaporated into the atmosphere every day for the residents of Fort worth to breath is a scary thought. The chemicals which will be heated and evaporated include some the deadliest elements in the produced water, that being the benzines, toluenes, lead, mercury, uranium, radium 226 and 228 along with other deadly chemicals. These chemicals can not be filtered out of the water completely or satisfactorily. A more complete list of some of the chemicals that are in produced water is attached.

I have also attached a paper describing what produced water is from the Department of U.S. Energy. You will note the difference from the description of produced water in the attached information than presented by Chesapeake Energy. It is not just saltwater. I have highlighted some of the important sections in yellow relating to Natural gas, specifically, pages 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,15, 16, 18, 67.

Council person Danny Scarth (District 4), who has promoted this item like it was his own and often refers to "WE" when talking about Chesapeake, has suggested it will reduce Nox in the air by reducing truck traffic used to dispose of the water. What he is neglecting to mention in promoting this project, is the gas compressors needed to evaporate the 50,400 barrels of water every day into nearby neighborhoods include four massive 1400 horsepower engines. These industrial motors and their emissions are regulated very little in any form. The large trucks which haul the water, on the other hand, have a great deal of regulation in their emissions control and the type and quality of fuel they must use.

This site in East Fort Worth has even been promoted as a recycling facility of produced water by the City and Chesapeake, even though there is no water being reused. It is not a recycling facility but it is a cheap method for Chesapeake alone, to dispose of toxic waste.

Why would the city promote a site such as this that recycles no water, when other local companies recycle up to 80-90 percent of the water at their sites. There are even other companies that report a near 100 percent recycle ability.

The City has already proposed allocating funds to study the air quality at this experimental project for hydrocarbons. There is no money, however, to study the air for the radium 226 or 228 or the natural occurring uranium, lead or mercury.

Why is anyone promoting this experimental project so adamantly when its impact on District 4 is not good for the people? Only Chesapeake benefits from this, not other companies or the citizens and the people who live nearby.

*(1 barrel = 42 gallons)

Jim Ashford