EPA/DIMICK RESULTS - Page 2 - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #11 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-16-2012, 07:00 PM
g17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: nepa
Posts: 368
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz
I believe the original problem was shallow methane getting into aquifier, and that is what Cabot and Dep were talking about. I am not positive that was all, and dont have time to look it up right now.

There were acusations that a slew of other chemicals are in there water, and all from gas drilling. as I read it, the EPA test show that is not true. I am sure further test will show more results.

Bottom line to me so far......The antis put a big dog and pony show on over in Dimick makeing all kinds of claims.....the EPA results to date show that as usual, they were all talk.
The original problem was indeed methane getting into the water but as testing has shown, it was thermogenic methane from the devonian shale formation - not shallow.

"There were acusations that a slew of other chemicals are in there water, and all from gas drilling. as I read it, the EPA test show that is not true."

Did you not read this part of the initial testing: "the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and OTHER COMPOUNDS that will require further tests at some homes"

by the way, It's Dimock, PA. and still waiting for your thoughts on the Franklin Forks video.....
g17 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-16-2012, 07:01 PM
g17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: nepa
Posts: 368
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennyF
Quote:
Let me ask you this, if the DEP said the water was no good, If Cabot's own testing last year showed the water was no good, If the EPA looking over the dep and cabot's testing said the water was no good. Would you drink it? All of the above events have happened.
I believe the "operative issue" here, is whether or not the well water was rendered "no good" due to the recent drilling; OR is determined to have been a pre-existing condition, unrelated to the gas drilling?

Which to me, is what the article is about.
Guess we'll have to wait for the rest of the results and hopefully they'll release the results instead of summarizing. When they say "the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds that will require further tests at some homes", I'm not sure what they found.
g17 is offline  
post #13 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-16-2012, 07:35 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
buzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bradford County
Posts: 7,382
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

Is arsenic found in water wells in Pa before gas drilling was here ?

All I know about the Franklin Forks well is a homemade YouTube video. I am sure if there is a issue there, related to gas drilling, it will make headline news and credible people will investigate and find the cause.
The anti crowd had some of those home made videos which didnt amount to any truth....time will tell with this one.

Apparently I snore so loudly that it scares everyone in the car I'm driving.
buzz is offline  
post #14 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-16-2012, 09:27 PM
Senior Member
 
DennyF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cumberland County 5A
Posts: 23,783
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

Quote:
When they say "the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds that will require further tests at some homes", I'm not sure what they found.
Believe they said those compounds were found in the wells tested thus far, but at lower levels, which may be about what is generally found to be "acceptable" per normal testing standards?

Depending on the water found in certain areas, there are standards established for what is and what is not, acceptable. Those include various chemicals, minerals and other goodies commonly found in various local aquifers.

All water is not "created" equally for various reasons and all water is not contaminated to some degree, by industrial or other activities.

Some folks' learnin' curves just look like circles...3A Camp/also hunt 4B
DennyF is offline  
post #15 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-16-2012, 09:29 PM
g17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: nepa
Posts: 368
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz
Is arsenic found in water wells in Pa before gas drilling was here ?

All I know about the Franklin Forks well is a homemade YouTube video. I am sure if there is a issue there, related to gas drilling, it will make headline news and credible people will investigate and find the cause.
The anti crowd had some of those home made videos which didnt amount to any truth....time will tell with this one.
Of course arsenic and other compounds are found in the water, and trace amounts won't hurt you. Cabot's own testing which actually brought the EPA in showed much more than trace amounts. More along the lines of what some of the neighbors are experiencing now. (at least according to the DEP and Cabot). Does this mean whatever is in the water is migrating away from the original impacted area? I don't know, nobody does - which is why it's important to see the results for the remaining 45+ wells in the area. I'm more interested in the other stuff they found (quote the samples indicated the presence of arsenic and other compounds). What is it and at what levels?

Quote "I am sure if there is a issue there, related to gas drilling, it will make headline news "

Actually it didn't make headline news and the DEP has been out twice. First test showing 30+mg/liter methane, 2nd test showing 60+mg/liter methane. The results as to whether it is biogenic or thermogenic have not come back yet. Neither has the results for any other compounds.

Seems sometimes "homemade" videos are the only source of information as witnessed by the Franklin Township meeting where all this information came to light, at least to some of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8l61X7nqT0
g17 is offline  
post #16 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-16-2012, 09:40 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,880
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2...08-28-093.html

<span style="font-style: italic">Issued without comment by New Jersey environmental officials, it shows that more than 12 percent of over 51,000 residential wells sampled failed to meet drinking water standards.

This means that people drinking from those 6,120 wells are drinking polluted water.

Found in 2,209 wells, the most frequent violation was radioactive contamination, called in the report "gross alpha particle activity."


Water in New Jersey's private wells tests too high for radioactivity, arsenic and other contaminants. (Photo by Ray Rocket Creasey)
The term "gross alpha" does not refer to a specific contaminant, but to a group of radioactive elements found in drinking water. Data on gross alpha particle radioactivity in New Jersey private wells are included and evaluated in this report for the first time, the report states.

<span style="font-weight: bold">The next most common violations found through sampling were high levels of arsenic, found in 1,445 wells; </span> nitrates, found in1,399 wells; fecal coliform or E. coli, found in 1,136 wells; volatile organic compounds, found in 702 wells; and mercury, found in 215 wells.

These figures do not count the contamination from lead, found in more than 5,200 wells, because the state Department of Environmental Protection considered the sampling results to be "questionable" in part due to "unrealistically high concentrations of lead."

</span>

wmu 3A
timberdoodle is offline  
post #17 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-16-2012, 10:40 PM
g17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: nepa
Posts: 368
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

just on WNEP - half of a page of test results:
2-butanol - 10 ug/ml
ethanol - 10 ug/ml
methanol - 10 ug/ml
anionic surfuctants .01 ug/ml
2-butoxylethanol 10 ug/ml
2-methoxyethanol 5 ug/l

Clearly the results should be released as the above compounds have no MCL (maximum contamination level) listed.
g17 is offline  
post #18 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-16-2012, 10:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: centre co pa
Posts: 2,308
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

Quote:
Originally Posted by g17
just on WNEP - half of a page of test results:
2-butanol - 10 ug/ml
ethanol - 10 ug/ml
methanol - 10 ug/ml
anionic surfuctants .01 ug/ml
2-butoxylethanol 10 ug/ml
2-methoxyethanol 5 ug/l

Clearly the results should be released as the above compounds have no MCL (maximum contamination level) listed.

I just drank about 4 beers, did I exceed the mcl for ethanol?
bearhollow is offline  
post #19 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-17-2012, 12:16 AM
Senior Member
 
jimbridger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: kunkle, pa
Posts: 11,250
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

Quote:
just drank about 4 beers, did I exceed the mcl for ethanol?
Ethanol? I have not seen iron city beer in a long time. Waugh!

AR is only a pacifier.You will never grow if it's not in your genes.
jimbridger is offline  
post #20 of 36 (permalink) Old 03-18-2012, 12:29 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
buzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bradford County
Posts: 7,382
Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS

It is interesting that originaly there were no chenicals in the water, just gas. Now as the homeowners are looking to sue, the chemicals show up. Now DEP 7 EPA have both indicated there are no unsafe levels or elevated levels due to NG Drilling.

So to me, after all that testing , I say heck yea.....release all the results , and lets try to figure out who contanimated that water. If it came from fracking , there water would continue to get worse as the frac water poured into the aquifier.

The water and gas is under several thousand lbs of pressure, the water aquifier has 0 lbs pressure. If frac fluid got in aquifer, it would continue to flowing in there due to pressure .

How ever, if someone were to pour something down there well, it could be concentrated there and slowly flow around through part of the aquifier.

I say yea, lets figure who put what in there ?

Apparently I snore so loudly that it scares everyone in the car I'm driving.
buzz is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome