Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Exploration Seismic Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises groundwater, sinkhole and testing concerns over Twin River hydrogen seismic surveys
Summary
A Wright County resident urged supervisors to consider risks from proposed hydrogen exploration and seismic testing, citing aquifer levels, sinkhole reports and recommended setback distances for testing near residences and field tile.
Sue Martin, a Wright County resident, addressed the Board of Supervisors Sept. 15 to present research and request that the board consider potential risks tied to Twin River exploration seismic testing and hydrogen well activity.
Martin told supervisors she had reviewed materials on hydrogen exploration and seismic testing and expressed multiple concerns, including the explosive nature of hydrogen, potential for induced seismicity, damage to field tile and drains, impacts to shallow aquifers, and the risk of sinkholes. “Hydrogen is very explosive. It is basically, there’s risks with it,” Martin said during her remarks.
She cited articles and state experiences she had collected comparing practices in other states, noting reported earthquakes tied to backfilling practices during oil operations and suggesting that seismic testing can damage infrastructure if conducted too close to field tile or homesteads. Martin said she found guidance recommending testing setbacks of about 50 meters (roughly 164 feet) from sensitive infrastructure in some reports and asked how testing near ditches, culverts and residences would be handled.
Martin also raised questions about drilling depth, radius of withdrawal for wells (she referenced figures including 640 and up to 1,280-acre radii in different sources), capping and backfill practices for exploratory wells, and whether regrading and subsurface compaction after capping would reduce agricultural yields. She urged the county engineer and other officials to review the materials she provided and to consider mitigation for homesteads and tile lines.
No formal action or vote was taken during the public comment. County staff accepted printed materials for distribution to the county engineer and other officials.
