Click here HuntingPA.com
Outdoor Community

HuntingPA.com Forums

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#2618922 - Fri Mar 16 2012 03:00 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: buzz]
g17 Offline
On the board

Registered: Fri Aug 05 2011
Posts: 368
Loc: nepa
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.....

Top
#2618925 - Fri Mar 16 2012 03:01 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: DennyF]
g17 Offline
On the board

Registered: Fri Aug 05 2011
Posts: 368
Loc: nepa
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.

Top
#2618951 - Fri Mar 16 2012 03:35 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: g17]
buzz Online   content
Honored

Registered: Wed Sep 01 2004
Posts: 5877
Loc: Bradford County
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.
_________________________
If Obama had a city.....it would act like Ferguson

Top
#2619088 - Fri Mar 16 2012 05:27 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: g17]
DennyF Offline
Geezer Emeritus
Stopped counting

Registered: Mon Feb 12 2001
Posts: 22877
Loc: Cumberland County 5A
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

Top
#2619091 - Fri Mar 16 2012 05:29 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: buzz]
g17 Offline
On the board

Registered: Fri Aug 05 2011
Posts: 368
Loc: nepa
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

Top
#2619097 - Fri Mar 16 2012 05:40 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: buzz]
timberdoodle Online   content
Stopped counting

Registered: Tue Jul 18 2006
Posts: 19034
Loc: Bradford Co. Pa
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2008/2008-08-28-093.html

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.

The next most common violations found through sampling were high levels of arsenic, found in 1,445 wells; 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."



Edited by timberdoodle (Fri Mar 16 2012 05:41 PM)
_________________________
wmu 3A

Pleasing everyone is impossible, but ticking off everyone off is simple



Top
#2619141 - Fri Mar 16 2012 06:40 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: buzz]
g17 Offline
On the board

Registered: Fri Aug 05 2011
Posts: 368
Loc: nepa
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.

Top
#2619162 - Fri Mar 16 2012 06:59 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: g17]
bearhollow Online   content
Pooh-Bah

Registered: Mon Dec 29 2008
Posts: 2134
Loc: centre co pa
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?

Top
#2619247 - Fri Mar 16 2012 08:16 PM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: bearhollow]
jimbridger Offline
The man

Registered: Tue Oct 23 2001
Posts: 9382
Loc: kunkle, pa
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.

Top
#2620435 - Sun Mar 18 2012 08:29 AM Re: EPA/DIMICK RESULTS [Re: buzz]
buzz Online   content
Honored

Registered: Wed Sep 01 2004
Posts: 5877
Loc: Bradford County
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 ?
_________________________
If Obama had a city.....it would act like Ferguson

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Moderator:  casey, DIYASUB, Flintlock, HuntingPA 
Google Ads
HuntingPA Sponsors
60X Custom Strings
ADT Security
Arrowhead
Boondock Outdoors
FoxPro
Growing Up With Guns
Hilltop Seeds
Hunting GPS Maps
Huntworth Gear
James Creek Outfitters
Knob Mountain Kennel
Lancaster Archery
Lowes Whitetail Scents
Martz Gap Hunting Preserve
Midwest Turkey Call Supply
Magees Optics
Mt. Hope Game Preserve
Night Eyes Predator Lights
No Limits Outdoors
On-Point Outfitters
Outdoorsman's Insight Magazine
Pheasants Forever
Premier Hunting Adventures
Randy Kuntz's Taxidermy
Realtree
Stony Gun & Archery
TrailCamPro
Two Bear Outfitters
Ultimate Camo
Who's Online
302 registered (19Delta, 25ftup, 10der222, 308 ruger, 284, 1 Happy Hunter, 31 invisible), 600 Guests and 23 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Google Ads
Newest Members
AutumnD, CaptainAwesome, Hunter K, jeffreyleb0wsk1, Bowtech-general
33287 Registered Users
Recent Posts
in line loads
by bigbear
Camo furniture
by Mike M.
anybody know these "pro-staffers"
by DrakesOnly
Hunting the Mechanicsburg/Carlis
le area

by clc
Hazlenuts
by PAGSPHUNTING
Seems to me
by RonM
Joke of the Day 9/17/14
by RonM
New Topics
Duck decoys
by hornbuilder
Recoil Reduction
by WittMachine
Sniper on the loose in NEPA
by Rusty Dog
Coons off a Mountain
by PA Waterfowler
05:09 PM
How Do you guys De-scent Your Vehicles
by stevenstiegel
04:50 PM
Hazlenuts
by SoPoHunter
03:05 PM
Fall PANFISH
by chez
01:15 PM
Top Posters
great white hunter 35133
RonM 29615
RB-HPA 27807
Bluetick 23799
DennyF 22877
TATERDAVID 22650
SigPro2340 21461
Peppy 20812
DIYASUB 20372
timberdoodle 19034
Forum Stats
33287 Members
99 Forums
109898 Topics
1387937 Posts

Max Online: 1692 @ Mon Dec 02 2013 08:38 PM

Please note: To post or reply to posts you must be a registered member and be logged in.  You can register by clicking on New User on the message board menu.