Pacific Coast Locators, Inc. is proud to be an exhibitor at the upcoming Common Ground Alliance Excavation Safety Conference at the Rio All-Suites Hotel in Las Vegas on March 6 through March 8, 2012. This will be our second appearance at the show, the first being in 2010. We will be presenting some of our equipment and explaining how we work in the field. We will also have pictures and videos of our technicians at work.

Damage Prevention education and training is an ongoing practice. Becoming a member of the CGA was integral part of doing business in our industry. It gives us the opportunity to learn from the experts and get more information on industry trends and technologies. We look forward to the plentiful workshops, exhibits and demonstrations as well as networking opportunities.

Excavation safety and the protection of our buried infrastructures is a shared responsibility. Getting together with our fellow stakeholders to share ideas and learn from each other is an excellent way to help ensure our success into the future. So come join us, you might just learn something new!

…and caused the horrible explosion in September of 2010.

As has been mentioned in previous posts on the subject, PG&E broke numerous state and federal safety laws leading up to the San Bruno gas-pipeline disaster. The biggest oversight was their failure to inspect the line for flaws after twice spiking the pipe’s gas level beyond the legal limit, state regulators have said.

Had PG&E conducted an inspection using high-pressure water, as called for by federal law, it would have definitely discovered that the pipeline running under San Bruno was defective, the California Public Utilities Commission said. That little discovery would have averted the distaster.

The five commission members voted unanimously at their meeting in San Francisco to adopt the findings of the 171-page staff report, which is only the first step in a process that could result in PG&E being fined hundreds of millions of dollars for safety violations. The commission issued its findings less than six months after the National Transportation Safety Board took on the task for its lax oversight of PG&E’s gas operations before the explosion of the 30-inch gas-transmission line.

In finding PG&E to blame for the blast, the federal board also found that the company had a dysfunctional safety culture that had led it to ignore problems on the San Bruno line and elsewhere in its gas system. Its inspection program was inadequate, its record keeping was shoddy and its emergency response the night of the explosion was slow and disorganized, federal investigators said.

The PUC report echoed many of those findings in identifying a series of laws it said PG&E had broken. It said that the ultimate cause was a failure by PG&E’s management “to foster a culture that valued safety over profits.”

Further findings by the commission showed that PG&E had violated industry standards all the way back to when it installed the San Bruno pipe in short sections in 1956. The metal was weaker than it should have been, and the pipe was held together with incomplete welds. The company’s pipeline integrity management program, record keeping and emergency response all violated the law.

State regulators went beyond the federal safety board, however, in pointing a finger at PG&E’s intentional spiking of gas levels on the pipeline, a practice The Chronicle revealed last year. In a series of stories, The Chronicle revealed that PG&E boosted the pressure on the San Bruno line not once, but TWICE – in 2003 and in 2008. The company now acknowledges that this was a misguided effort to preserve gas capacity under pipeline safety rules. It soon stopped the practice and has now abandoned it. State engineers have also concluded that the company broke federal pipeline safety laws when it first boosted the pressure in December 2003 to just above the maximum allowed pressure of 400 pounds per square inch.

Regulators determined that the first spiking was actually an effort to get around the federal rules aimed at capping pressure on an urban pipeline at the highest point at which it had operated over a five-year period.
At the time of the first spiking, PG&E knew the San Bruno pipe qualified as an urban line, even though it waited until the next year to formally recognize it as such. The state commission said PG&E should have known better than to spike first and declare the line to be in an urban area later.

Under federal law, just the fact that PG&E spiked the line slightly above the legal maximum should have triggered an inspection for any damage caused by the spike itself. This test would have exposed the faulty weld that ruptured. The report also said PG&E had violated a state order when it recorded over a video taken in its Brentwood gas center control room the night of the disaster.

“PG&E explained that the videotape was retained on a digital video recorder that was part of the closed-circuit electronic security system and was overwritten after approximately 60 days when it became full,” the report said. The utilities commission had ordered PG&E to preserve all evidence related to the San Bruno explosion.

“By erasing a digital video recording made during the incident at its Brentwood control room, PG&E destroyed potentially relevant information,” the report concluded.

In a statement, PG&E President Chris Johns said the utility took the findings “very seriously, and we will cooperate fully with the investigation.”

“It is clear that PG&E’s past gas operations practices were not what they should have been,” Johns said. “We have admitted these shortcomings, and we are committed to raising the level of pipeline safety to new, higher standards.”

He outlined several “fundamental changes” the company made after the disaster to make sure its “operations are as safe as possible,” including pressure testing, installation of automatic shutoff valves, pressure reductions on some pipelines and improved emergency response plans.

“We recognize that there is much more work ahead to be the company our customers expect us to be,” Johns said.

Mike Florio, the utilities commission member who oversees gas safety rule-making proceedings, welcomed the report as a critical step in assuring safety.

“This is the end of the beginning,” he said.

The penalties against PG&E could be enormous. They are likely to far exceed the $38 million the company was fined for a 2008 gas explosion in Rancho Cordova (Sacramento County), the biggest gas-related penalty the state has levied against the company.

“When you have violations covering years and years, and the penalty is per day, you could name any number,” Florio said. “But the idea of all of this is to determine a just and reasonable fine.

“The most important thing of all,” Florio said, “is to change the way this company operates.”

So there we have it. In the end it all came down to corporate greed and safety violations.

One of the best aspects of working as a locating technician is the freedom that comes from working outside. No two days are the same, as the locator visits different sites around town each week. There are, however, many potential hazards. How the technician deals with these hazards can be the difference between going home safely at night and a trip to the hosptial, or worse. The following is a list of 10 possible hazards that locators face. They are ranked from 10 to 1, but not too much emphasis should be placed on the ranking itself. A hazard on one site may not exist on the next.

10. The Utility
Gaining access to underground utilities sometimes requires entering a confined space. There have been too many instances in the past where a utility worker enters a manhole without testing and preparing the space. If the first worker is overcome by gases and a second working tries to help, he will most likely also be overcome. Neither will be likely to survive. Better equipment and training have made these types of tragedies very rare. The rule is to never enter a confined space without following required procedures. And of course, pass it on. If you see someone else trying to enter a space without testing and preparation, stop them and wait unitl the right equipment is available. You might save a life.

9. Eye Injury
There are many potential eye hazards on the average construction site. Blowing dust and debris can cause severe eye irritation, while tree branches at eye level or bushes and plants that hide utility cabinets can also present a significate risk to the eye. Even the marking paint that locators use can become a painful hazard when accidentally sprayed in the face. Since the locator’s attention is usually focused on the equipment and putting paint ont the ground, attention may be away from otherwise obvious obstacles. Safety glasses are a must and should always be worn while locating.

8. Climate
Heat or cold extremes can be very hazardous to locators. Summer heat can be very hard on an unprepared body. The unsuspecting locator can be easily overwhelmed by heat rash, extreme sunburn and heat stroke. There are a few things that can be done to prevent problems with heat in the summer and even make locating during the summer months enjoyable. Always dress right for the season. Wear light, reflective clothing and a wide brimmed hat. Be sure to apply a high SPF sunscreen several times a day. Do not forget the importance of staying hydrated; drink water continuously throughout the day, even when you are not thirsty. Also, minimize the soft drinks. Always take breaks when you need them and don’t wait until you’re overheated.

Cold weather also presents problems, so similiar methods should be employed to avoid frost bite or hypothermia. It’s a good idea to dress in layers. Wear a good hat to and gloves if needed. Breaks are also important in the cold, be sure to take them before you get too cold. Having spare clothing available in case you get wet is another measure. Dry socks and gloves can make a big difference in comfort.

7. Dog Bites
Sometimes a locator will have to deal with dogs on private property. There really isn’t a way to tell which dogs will bite. Many dog bites have occured right after the homeowner informs the locator that the dog is not mean and would never bite. There are some ways to protect yourself in the even of a dog encounter. Always make plenty of noise when entering a fenced yard, including whistling before opening the gate. Look for signs such as a dog house, food and water bowls, toys or worn paths in the yard. When confronted by a dog, it’s recommended that you face the animal without making eye contact. Keep anything you can between you and the dog, such as a paint stick or receiver and slowly make your way to the gate. In the worst case you can use the paint or pepper spray to subdue the dog. But remember, avoidance is the best policy. If there is any doubt, contact your supervisor or the contractor to make arrangements to safely deal with situation.

6. Puncture Wounds/Foot Trauma
Construction sites are full of potential hazards to the feet. These include nails sticking out of scrap wood, sharp metal scrap, sharp rocks in tall grass and other sharp objects that can easily puncture soft sole shoes. There is also the risk of injury from heavy structures like dropped hand hole or manhole covers. This is why tennis shoes should never be worn while locating. Thick soled work boots with steel toes are ideal. In the past several years, technology has improved work boots, maing them much more comfortable to wear. They can usually be purchased at a fairly reasonable price.

5. Poisonous and Stinging Plants
Just about every area of the country has some sort of poisonous or stinging plant around. Poison oak and poison ivy or the most common culprits in many areas. Whatever the plant, there are some steps that you should take to avoid them. First and foremost, learn to recognize the common characteristics of these plants. Next, wear clothes that cover the skin such as long sleeved shirts and pants. Finally, thoroughly wash the clothes as soon as possible after coming in contact with these plants.

4. Insect Bites and Stings
Utility cabinets and vaults are great places for insect homes. Bees, wasps, fire ants and spiders love these environments. Before opening a utility cabinet, tap the outside with a pedestal wrench. This may let you know whether a nest is inside. If a nest is present, another access point may need to be used. If you are allergic to stings, let coworkers and your supervisor know so that they may educate themselves on how to handle a sting. If bitten or stung by an uknown insect, tell the supervisor immediately and monitor the situation carefully. Get medical attention if necessary.
Two other common insects that cause problems in the field are mosquitoes and ticks. In both cases, an insect repellant should be used on a regular basis. Both of these insects can carry harmful disease. Know the symptoms and seek immediate medical attention. Be sure to check for ticks regularly throughout the day.

3. Muscle Strains
Some of the main causes of work site injuries are lifting, bending and squatting. During the course of a work day, the average locating technician will perform these tasks over and over again. To help prevent muscle strains, regular stretches should be performed throughout the day. Improper lifting techniques can cause severe back injuries. Always use proper technique when lifting; keep the back straight and lift with your knees bent. Never use the back! Also, good health practices such as regular exercise and proper diet and eating habits can lead to good general health and help prevent this type of injury.

2. Slips, Trips and Falls
The most common injury for locators are probably related to slips, trips and falls. Unleveled ground, rocks, holes, weeds and other obstacles are potential hazards. Locators are usually so focused on their receivers that they often don’t see these hazards in plain sight. Locators need to constantly scan the area for these hazards and adjust their pace to meet the conditions they are in. Any incident, no matter how small, should be reported to a suporvisor. Something that seems minor at the time of the incident can escalate into a serious problem in just a few hours.

1. Automobile Related Incidents
This risk can be divided into two categories; the locator as a driver and the locator as a pedestrian. Driving is a big part of the locating job, and much of the typical day is usually spent driving to the job site. Just inside the cab of a truck, there are many potential distractions. Computers, GPS systems and cell phones can all distract the driver. The route should be carefully planned before starting. Once on the road, do not answer calls or texts. If a call must be taken, the locator should pull over in a safe place before answering.

The locator as a pedestrian is always in a potenially hazardous situation when locating in and around streets. You should always assume that the people in vehicles are not watching them and take great care when working in the road. When on a construction site, always be aware of the movement of heavy equipment. One of the most common causes of construction fatalities is back-overs by equipment. Always make sure that the operator sees you and take care to avoid the path of the equipment.

All it takes is good training and situational awareness to avoid many of these hazards. There are plenty of safety precautions and procedures that should be followed every day on every job, no matter what. This list does not include every possible hazard that a locator may encounter, but these seem to be the most common. If you feel you need training, let your supervisor know. The regular necessary training should be provided, but hazard avoidance is ultimately the responsibility of the locator.

It’s been over a year since the blast and investigators continue to dig up some awful facts that led to the disaster.

A Chronicle investigation discovered that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. had relied on leak surveys to determine that its gas transmission pipelines were safe even as it was handing out bonuses to supervisors whose crews found fewer leaks and kept repair costs down. This had gone on for a long time. PG&E did not discard the leak-related incentive program until two years before the September 2010 blast in San Bruno that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes. Even then, it only did so after three company whistle-blowers complained to PG&E’s top officials and board of directors that the utility was encouraging supervisors to overlook possible safety threats.

The complaints led to an internal company audit in April 2008 that concluded that the policy of providing incentives for finding fewer leaks encouraged crews to produce inaccurate surveys, naturally. The policy was only one of several factors keeping PG&E from being able to “effectively identify leaks and to reduce risks to employees and customer safety,” the audit said. PG&E was prompted by the audit’s findings to conduct a rush inspection of its entire gas distribution and transmission system starting in October 2008. These surveys found many more leaks than crews had found in checks performed since 2004.

By February 2009, however, state regulators were still not satisfied, as the pace of the inspection effort and noted that almost all of the newly discovered leaks were serious. The resulting findings indicated that almost every leak survey PG&E had conducted since 2004 was “not effective” and that the public would have to endure a “reduced level of safety” until the makeup inspections were done, said Sunil Shori, an engineer with the California Public Utilities Commission. Shori “strongly” urged PG&E to accelerate their effort, but the work had not been completed before the San Bruno blast.

After the disaster, PG&E performed emergency leak surveys of its entire urban gas-transmission system. In one month, the company reported finding 38 high-priority gas leaks, four of which were so serious the company had to report them to federal officials. This is compared with only six leaks found for the entire previous year.

“This is a big, big deal,” said Richard Kuprewicz, an independent pipeline safety expert in Redmond, Wash., who reviewed the 2008 audit conclusions about bonuses and leaks for The Chronicle. “They’ve got a major, major problem here.”

Of course they do.

Kuprewicz said the bonus system was “training and rewarding people to do the wrong thing” and characteristic of “a seriously broken process.”

“This explains many of the systemic problems in this operation that contributed to the tragedy” in San Bruno, he said.

It sure as hell does.

PG&E spokesman David Eisenhauer said the leaks-per-mile standard is used nationwide “to help utilities have an apples-to-apples comparison. It was one of many measures used to compare divisions within PG&E. However, it was never, and still is not, intended to be used as an incentive for people to find fewer leaks.”

PG&E began providing leak-related incentives for managers before a 2002 federal law took effect that required inspections for many gas pipelines, workers have stated. The federal rules instructed operators to use leak histories on urban pipelines when selecting an inspection method. Leaks can be caused by several things, including failures in longitudinal seam welds – the problem that caused the San Bruno explosion. If a transmission line has a history of a certain kind of longitudinal weld failure, federal rules require that the operator test it either by filling a pipe with high-pressure water or running an automated device through it.

PG&E has buried themselves further in that they rarely used those methods before the San Bruno blast, saying that pressure testing was inconvenient and expensive, and arguing that automated devices could not navigate many of its lines.

State regulators have concluded that these systemic violations of California law and federal safety regulations could result in significant fines for the company. Yet another a report from the California Public Utilities Commission has concluded what has become obvious; PG&E failed to follow accepted industry practice when installing the pipeline, failed to comply with federal pipeline integrity management requirements, kept inadequate records, and poorly collected and reported data.

The latest report opens an agency penalty consideration case on the disaster that will include public hearings and may conclude with “monetary fines and other remedies,” the commission said in a statement.

“We are now, essentially, giving PG&E its day in court,” commission President Michael Peevey said in the statement. “If we determine PG&E has violated the law, we are prepared to impose very significant fines.”

Last month, the CPUC approved a $38 million fine against PG&E for a 2008 natural gas explosion in Rancho Cordova near Sacramento that resulted in one fatality. That incident was minor compaired to The San Bruno explosion that leveled an entire neighborhood, killing eight people and injuring dozens.

PG&E President Chris Johns said in a statement Thursday that the company was taking the CPUC findings seriously and cooperating with the investigation.

“It is clear that PG&E’s past gas operations were not what they should have been,” Johns said. “We have admitted these shortcomings, and we are committed to raising the level of pipeline safety to new, higher standards.”

It’s a little too late, buddy.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators stated last year that the company had several chances to avert the disaster, but failed to do so. NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman said her agency’s investigation showed “troubling revelations about a company that exploited weaknesses in a lax system of oversight and government agencies that placed a blind trust in operators to the detriment of public safety.”

At this point we can only hope that justice is served and this corporate giant that put profits over safety is made fully liable for their immense oversights, and that this whole mess serves as an expensive example to others.

It was another successful year that ended strong for Pacific Coast Locators. Not only did we continue to strive and build confidence with our current clients, we also gained several new clients. Work with new clients included many solar projects as well. The summer months were especially busy for us this year.

Every challenge was met with enthusiasm and strength, thanks to our wonderful team of technicians. We are proud to have such talented technicians, who put in so much time making sure to do each and every job right, and putting safety first as always. We are also very thankful for all of our clients and do our best to make sure that they are satisfied with our work. If they are in any way unsatisfied, we make sure to go back to the site and make things right!

We are very excited to announce that in addition to underground utility locating services, we will now be offering Global Positioning System and Global Information System services in the coming year. In obtaining the latest GPS/GIS tools and software, we will be able to map the coordinates of utilities in order to provide detailed maps in AutoCAD format. This will allow our clients to determine exact locations of underground features and attributes.

The Pacific Coast Locators family is once again looking forward to another year of serving our valued clients while gaining new experience and hopefully continuing to grow as we do so.

Happy New Year!

For the first time, in early December, federal environment officials scientifically linked underground water pollution with hydraulic fracturing. They concluded that the contaminants found in central Wyoming were likely caused by the gas drilling process. These findings by the Environmental Protection Agency come partway through a separate national study by the agency to determine whether fracking presents a risk to water resources.

In the 121-page draft report released on December 8, 2011, EPA officials said that the contamination near the town of Pavillion, Wyo., had most likely seeped up from gas wells and contained at least 10 compounds known to be used in frack fluids.

The draft report states that, “The presence of synthetic compounds such as glycol ethers and the assortment of other organic components is explained as the result of direct mixing of hydraulic fracturing fluids with ground water in the Pavillion gas field. Alternative explanations were carefully considered.” These findings could very well be a turning point in the national debate about whether contamination from fracking is occurring. Further, they are likely to shape how the country regulates and develops natural gas resources in the Marcellus Shale and across the Eastern Appalachian states.

Some of the information in the report also directly contradicts longstanding arguments by the drilling industry for why the fracking process is safe: that hydrologic pressure would naturally force fluids down, not up; that deep geologic layers provide a watertight barrier preventing the movement of chemicals towards the surface; and that the problems with the cement and steel barriers around gas wells aren’t connected to fracking.

Of course, environmental advocates feel a sense of vindication from this report, and have taken the opportunity to argue for stronger federal regulation of fracking.

“No one can accurately say that there is ‘no risk’ where fracking is concerned,” wrote Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, on her blog. “This draft report makes obvious that there are many factors at play, any one of which can go wrong. Much stronger rules are needed to ensure that well construction standards are stronger and reduce threats to drinking water.”

A spokesman for EnCana, the gas company that owns the Pavillion wells, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In an email exchange after the EPA released preliminary water test data in November, the spokesman, Doug Hock, denied that the company’s actions were to blame for the pollution and suggested natural causes.

“Nothing EPA presented suggests anything has changed since August of last year– the science remains inconclusive in terms of data, impact, and source,” Hock wrote. “It is also important to recognize the importance of hydrology and geology with regard to the sampling results in the Pavillion Field. The field consists of gas-bearing zones in the near subsurface, poor general water quality parameters and discontinuous water-bearing zones.”

The EPA’s findings have quickly triggered what is sure to become an intense political debate as members of Congress consider new proposals to regulate fracking.

Residents began complaining of fouled water near Pavillion in the mid-1990s, and the problems appeared to get worse around 2004. Several residents complained that their well water turned brown shortly after gas wells were fracked nearby. For a time, gas companies operating in the area supplied replacement drinking water to residents.

Beginning in 2008, the EPA took water samples from resident’s drinking water wells and found hydrocarbons and traces of contaminants that seemed like they could be related to fracking. In 2010, another round of sampling confirmed the contamination, and the EPA, along with federal health officials, cautioned residents not to drink their water and to ventilate their homes when they bathed because the methane in the water could cause an explosion.

To confirm their findings, EPA investigators drilled two water monitoring wells to 1,000 feet. Then they released data from these test wells in November that confirmed high levels of carcinogenic chemicals such as benzene, and a chemical compound called 2 Butoxyethanol, which is known to be used in fracking.

The EPA was still not able to draw conclusions based on the tests and made an effort to separate its groundwater investigation in Wyoming from the national controversy around hydraulic fracturing. Agriculture, drilling, and old pollution from waste pits left by the oil and gas industry were all considered possible causes of the contamination.

In the report released this month, the EPA said that pollution from 33 abandoned oil and gas waste pits – which are the subject of a separate cleanup program – are indeed responsible for some degree of shallow groundwater pollution in the area. Those pits may be the source of contamination affecting at least 42 private water wells in Pavillion. But the pits could not be blamed for contamination detected in the water monitoring wells 1,000 feet underground. That contamination, the agency concluded, had to have been caused by fracking.

The EPA’s findings in Wyoming are specific to the region’s geology; the Pavillion-area gas wells were fracked at shallower depths than many of the wells in the Marcellus shale and elsewhere. Investigators tested the cement and casing of the gas wells and found what they described as “sporadic bonding” of the cement in the areas just above where fracking took place. The cement barrier meant to protect the well bore and isolate the chemicals in their intended zone had been weakened and separated from the well, the EPA concluded.

The report also found that hydrologic pressure in the Pavillion area had pushed fluids from deeper geologic layers towards the surface. Those layers were not enough to provide a reliable barrier to contaminants moving upward, the report says.

Throughout its investigation in Wyoming, the EPA was powerless due to a lack of disclosure about exactly what chemicals had been used to frack the wells near Pavillion. EnCana declined to give federal officials a detailed breakdown of every compound used underground. The agency had to rely instead on more general information supplied by the company to protect workers’ health.

Hock would not say whether EnCana had used 2 BE, which is one of the first chemicals identified in Pavillion and known to be used in fracking, at its wells in Pavillion. But he dismissed importance in the EPA’s findings. “There was a single detection of 2-BE among all the samples collected in the deep monitoring wells. It was found in one sample by only one of three labs,” he wrote in his reply to ProPublica two weeks ago. “Inconsistency in detection and non-repeatability shouldn’t be construed as fact.”

The EPA’s draft report still needs to undergo the public review and peer review processes, and is expected to be finalized by spring of 2012.

High-volume hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” has made it possible to extract natural gas from rock formations deep underground. Many think it is a great advance, and many find the practice very detrimental to the environment. Then of course there are also those that try to confuse policymakers and the general public alike by providing false information. There are so many contradictory reports out there on natural gas that it’s sometimes almost impossible to tell fact from fiction.

Those creating the confusion usually have a long history of taking money from corporations to promote the free-market, deregulatory agenda of big business, and a history of falsely undermining climate science. False representations created by those who stand to gain the most is a common theme. The media is also a huge contender in steering views on the subject.

An important point is that scientists have a very limited understanding of how much methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is being emitted from shale gas drilling across the United States. If we do not have this understanding, we cannot possibly know the full greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas. This means that the natural gas industry’s promotion of shale gas as a bridge from fossil fuels to renewables is not based on science, and that more research is needed before exposing the public to the effects of fracking.

It is in the public’s best interest to dissect the claims of industry—and their backers—and get to the roots of what is known and what is unknown about shale gas development.

Stayed tuned for the latest in fracking developments in the next post!

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of using highly pressurized fluid (water, chemicals and sand) to cause fractures in rock formations to break open the rock in order to release petroleum, natural gas, coal seam gas, or other substances for extraction. The technique is often called fracking or hydrofracing. This type of fracturing, often called a “frack job” is done from a wellbore that is drilled into reservoir rock formations. The energy from the injection of highly pressurized fluid creates new channels in the rock. The benefit of this practice is that it can increase extraction rates and the retrieval of fossil fuels. The technique is used to increase or restore the rate at which fluids, such as oil or water, or natural gas can be produced from subterranean natural reservoirs. These include such uncommon reservoirs as shale rock or coal beds. The width of the fracture is usually maintained after the initial injection by mixing a “proppant” into the fluid to be injected. Proppant is a particulant material, such as grains of sand or ceramic, that prevents the fractures from closing when the injection is stopped.

Fracking makes possible the production of natural gas and oil from rock formations deep below the earth’s surface (generally 5,000-20,000 feet or 1,500-6,100 m). At such a depth, there usually is not enough porosity (the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the volume of the pores or interstices of a substance, as a rock or rock stratum, to the total volume of the mass) and permeability to allow natural gas and oil to easily flow from the rock into the wellbore. Creating conductive fractures in the rock is needed to extract gas from shale reservoirs because of the extremely low natural permeability of shale. Fractures provide a conductive path that connects a larger area of the reservoir to the well, increasing the area from which natural gas and liquids can be recovered from the formation.

The practice is considered controversial and has been banned in many areas because of numerous cases of water contamination near fracking sites. The process also produces a toxic wastewater that cannot be treated by standard treatment plants. It is especially dangerous because drillers, seeing nothing but dollar signs, are rushing to use the technique in new areas of the country without completely evaluating the effects on human health and the environment, and without enough government oversight.

What are the specific dangers? First and foremost, the chemicals used are toxic and can contaminate water from spills or accidents. The hazardous wastewater that is produced can contain radioactive substances as well as toxic chemicals, making proper disposal difficult and dangerous. There are plenty of disingenuous people and businesses who will take the easiest route possible in order to make money from the practice. Safe disposal is usually the first to be cut out of the process. It is a simple fact that fracking requires millions of gallons of water and can deplete local water supplies. If the process is not absolutely necessary, why do such a thing? Then there is the extremely dangerous risk of causing natural gas to migrate into drinking water sources, which can cause houses and wells to explode. There have already been more than 1,000 documented cases of water contamination near drilling sites around the country.

This is only the beginning… Stay tuned for more of the facts and fiction of fracking.

Even with the best training, equipment, and preparation, it is an inevitable fact of working in utility locating industry that damages will happen. When they do happen, and when they cannot be resolved without dispute, the prospect of giving a deposition can frighten even the most experienced witness. But, there is the positive aspect in that when a deposition goes well, it can be one of the most effective tools for resolving a claim in your company’s favor. Just keep a few tips in mind and you can make sure that the deposition goes well.

The first thing you will want to do is prepare with an attorney. A business owner should always have a trusted attorney on their side. An experienced litigation attorney will have a list of anticipated topics that will most likely be covered during a deposition. They should also have an idea of the documents that will be shown to you as part of preliminary examination. The key is to listen carefully to what is expected. It will help ease your mind and you will be able to focus on the main issues in order to produce a focused, accurate and effective testimony. Be sure to ask questions and take notes as needed to prepare.

The next thing you need to consider is leaving all documentation and notes at home. Be sure to review everything as much as possible until you are comfortable, then either leave it all at home or turn them over to your attorney. The reason behind this is that the opposing attorney has the right to review any documents that you bring with you to the deposition. They also have the right to ask for copies of them. If you don’t have anything with you, there is nothing to review during the deposition. If your attorney needs to disclose any of the information before or after the deposition, you can leave that decision up to them.

When you’re finally in the witness’ seat, you are probably going to want to do whatever you can to end the questioning as quickly as possible. Resist the urge to rush, as you will put less thought into your answers and all of your careful preparation will be for nothing. Be aware that the deposition could very well take an entire day, but it is only one day and will be over soon enough. After each question is asked, stop and think before you answer. Think about your preparation and know where you want to take your answer before you start answering. Once you begin speaking, only answer the question that is being asked. Do not volunteer any more information than is requested. You do not want to be as accommodating in a deposition as you might be in your personal life. Just listen carefully, answer only what is asked and then stop.

Depositions are not fun. But if you follow these simple tips, at least you will know that your anxiety and inconvenience turned out to be helpful in resolving the damage claim and getting your company back to business as usual.

All of that information about remediation needs some illustrations. Below are a few examples of how the components in some of the different kinds of systems work. Click to enlarge.