Fracking spawns boom in sand mines
BULCHER, Texas — Along the Red River, under the grazing cattle and the oil pumps running like metronomes, lie vast deposits of sand.
Until recently, the sand drew little interest from the mining industry. Silica, the primary component of sand, is one of the most abundant substances on the earth's surface. Then, three years ago, EOG Resources, a Houston oil and gas driller, bought more than a thousand acres near the Oklahoma border to open a sand mining operation.
The site is screened from the road by trees and hills, so locals have taken to examining it through satellite images online.
“Look at the size of it. And this was taken last year, so it's probably a lot different now,” Jack Schoppa, a businessman in nearby St. Jo, Texas, said as he showed a photo on his computer.
Sand is a principal component in the hydraulic fracturing process. It has been mined in the United States in rapidly increasing volumes since the oil and gas shale boom began. From the northern banks of the Mississippi to the Red River, the flow of sand to drilling operations has created what geologists say amounts to a mining boom.
The exact scale of the industry is unknown. But a U.S. Geological Survey study released earlier this year estimated that 47.8 million tons of sand were mined in 2011, an increase of more than 60 percent from two years earlier — and analysts say that estimate is probably sizably short of the real number.
“I think you'd have to go back to the industrial revolution to see that sort of change,” said Mark Ellis, president of the National Industrial Sand Association. “Horizontal drilling and shale gas has completely changed the landscape.”
And that dramatic ramping up of mining operations — which brings with it truck traffic, clouds of microscopic sand and intense water demand — has met resistance.
The bulk of the sand for hydraulic fracturing is being mined in the upper Midwest. In Minnesota, public outcry has resulted in state hearings. One case brought a county ordinance banning mining along a lakeside bluff.
Similar tension has arisen in North Texas, where residents along the Red River have been pressing state environmental regulators to block EOG's mine from operating.
They have lobbied state and local politicians and testified at public hearings, expressing fears about heavy trucks wrecking roads and the impact the mining would have on ranchers' water supply.
More than two years after EOG filed an application with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the company still has not received an air quality permit.
A decision is not expected until this fall at the earliest. But already, officials in Cooke County, where the mine is to be located, agreed to back off if EOG installed air monitors around the site, said County Commissioner Leon Klement.
“EOG says they'll be good neighbors. We'll just see how it works,” he said.
Schoppa, who does regular business with ranchers through his real estate operation, said air quality was a minor issue compared to the amount of water the sand mine was projected to pull from aquifers.
In its application, EOG estimated water use of 3,700 gallons a minute once the mine is in operation. The company declined an interview, but according to its website, 90 percent of the water would be “recycled and reused,” drawn from a deeper aquifer of brackish, undrinkable water.
But those assurances have drawn skepticism, Schoppa said.
“How is that going to work? I would like to see a well log,” he said. “This town is on well water. If those wells go dry, it's going to be a disaster.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Experts: If health insurers’ safeguard goes broke, consumers could pay
- Visa limits vex businesses
- Rules could kick door open for nuclear power
- Nike, Under Armour invest in watching exercisers’ steps
- Paper’s prevalence unlikely to diminish
- Scented society is killing cheap perfume industry
- Camera prevalence approaches sci-fi realm
- Kings Family Restaurants sold to California firm
- ‘Promposals’ can be small as burritos, big as Jumbotrons
- MedExpress bought by United Health Group
- Mylan raises bid for fellow drugmaker; Perrigo says ‘no’