The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/epa-rel...3#axzz1rHxy0umN

"Mr. Seneca said the EPA has not done any detailed review to determine the cause of any contaminants."

Simply put the EPA is not looking into causation until all the test results are in, so any claims as to whether or not drilling operations caused it is merely speculation at this point although the PA DEP placed the blame squarely on Cabot's shoulders and Cabot accepted that until they deemed it was going to cost them too much to run a pipeline.

The referenced article above includes a link to the pdf of the actual results thus far. review of the first 75 pages or so show several things exceeding epa trigger levels such as: flouride, arsenic, chromium, lithium, sodium, methane, lead, and barium. several things with no epa or state safe levels found, some of which include: ethane, acetone, phthalate di-n-octyl, methyl acetate, bromophenyl-4 phenyl ether, carbazole, chlorophenyl-4 phenyl ether, dibenzofuran, dinitrotoluene-2, perylene-benzo(ghi), and phenonthrene.

As to the naturally occurring side of things, some non-naturally occurring compounds have been found one of which is Butyl Benzyl Pthalate (page 36).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
You keep saying DEP put the blame for the contanimation on Cabot. Can you post a link that shows THE EXACT chemicals that DEP said Cabot put in the water in ALL the Dimock wells ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
EPA: Water Quality OK at 20 Wells in Pa. Gas TownEmail











DIMOCK, Pa. April 6, 2012 (AP)







Testing at 20 more water wells in a northeastern Pennsylvania community at the center of a debate over the safety of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale shows no dangerous levels of contamination, according to a report issued Friday by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA had already tested 11 wells in Dimock, showing the presence of sodium, methane, chromium or bacteria in six of the wells before the results of the latest round of testing.

Three of the newly-tested wells showed methane while one showed barium well above the EPA's maximum level, but a treatment system installed in the well is removing the substance, an EPA spokesman said.

Featured in the documentary "Gasland," the Susquehanna County village of Dimock has been at the center of a fierce debate over drilling, in particular the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The process involves injecting a mixture of water and chemicals deep underground to free trapped natural gas so it can be brought to the surface.




State environmental regulators previously determined that Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. contaminated the aquifer underneath homes along Carter Road in Dimock with explosive levels of methane gas, although they later determined the company had met its obligation to provide safe drinking water to residents.

The EPA is still providing drinking water to three homes where prior tests showed contamination. A second round of tests is under way, regulators said.

A group of Dimock residents suing Cabot assert their water is also polluted with drilling chemicals, while others say that the water is clean and the plaintiffs are exaggerating problems with their wells to help their lawsuit.

A Cabot spokesman said in a statement Friday that the "data confirms the earlier EPA finding that levels of contaminants found do not possess a threat to human health and the environment."

"Importantly, the EPA again did not indicate that those contaminants that were detected bore any relationship to oil and gas development in the Dimock area, particularly given the fact that any contaminants are more likely indicative of naturally-occurring background levels or other unrelated activities," the statement said.


from the AP wire
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Here is a copy the consent order dated November 4th, 2009 between Cabot and the DEP which clearly shows the DEP placed the blame on Cabot. It is dealing primarily with the methane issues that are still occurring in Dimock according to the EPA's results.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/natural_gas/final_cabot_co-a.pdf

As you may not be aware the results from the DEP are not published online thus no link exists. To see them you would have to go to a regional office and request them.

However here are Cabot's test results which are published on their website:

http://www.cabotog.com/pdfs/Switzer.pdf

http://www.cabotog.com/pdfs/Switzer_Part_2.pdf

http://www.cabotog.com/pdfs/Sautner.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
so DEP said Cabot did something in 2009 that caused a problem but can't change their mind now that they have more/better information ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
Unfortunately the DEP as a governmental agency can say anything they want....it is very difficult to get them to say they were wrong. It is very difficult to prove stray gas especially in an area where methane is naturally occurring in the groundwater. The DEP and EPA are very much guided and pressured by bad publicity. Not the field inspectors but the lawyers and the politically sensitive Harrisburg personnel that make the policy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
So the DEP placed the blame for gas migrating into the water on Cabot, not all theese chemicals you keep pointing out.

Big differance.

Also, according to a large group of local residents, the methane has been present in water wells in that area for years.....long before Cabot came to town.
No need to post all those links as they have been posted repeatdly on here.

At this point, niether DEP nor the EPA test show that the NG Drilling put any of the long list ofchemicals you keep posting, into the Dimock water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I was refering to me posting the links of the majority of the people around Dimock who say the methane was there long before Cabot.....I believe they called themselves "the other 99%"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
g17 said:
buzz said:
No need to post all those links as they have been posted repeatdly on here.
then why ask for them buzz? trying to stir the pot a little?


No, why do you ask? Is the anti side starting to feel some heat from the fire they tried to stoke?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
gotcha my bad.

Not sure what you are looking for. On John Hanger's (who is now employed by the industry) website he states "The EPA 2012 test results appear to be similar to the December 2010 DEP test results."

He also states "Testing of the gas in the gas wells confirmed that the gas was not pre-existing or natural occurring gas but had come from nearby gas wells."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
buzz said:
g17 said:
buzz said:
No need to post all those links as they have been posted repeatdly on here.
then why ask for them buzz? trying to stir the pot a little?


No, why do you ask? Is the anti side starting to feel some heat from the fire they tried to stoke?
Not from my perspective. The EPA results are showing contaminants in the water. They also mentioned a couple of the "90 percent" who are receiving water from Cabot. Simple question if the water is safe, why is Cabot delivering to some of the "90 percent"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,487 Posts
On the issue of methane migration into water wells, I feel compelled to ask why so many up there claim that to have been the case prior to the more recent Marcellus wells, yet others are determined to "pin it" on recent drilling?

Not the first time that initial testing has indicated one thing and subsequent testing eventually leads in another direction. It is why additional testing takes place, regardless of what the problems are.

Insisting on sticking with initial testing, is sorta like discounting new DNA evidence in criminal cases, based on the fact that DNA testing wasn't available when the crime occured.



Sampling and testing standards can change, in the face of new/better techniques or equipment. It's a changing science that continually discovers better ways of doing things, plus more reliable/accurate ways of determining the results.

Doesn't look to me like this one has been resolved yet, so if the agencies are intent on getting to the bottom of these contentious issues, good for them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Denny I agree. I'm very interested to see what the EPA comes up with as far as causation. They have stated that will be looked into once all testing data is in. So far about 50 percent done.

So far all prior testing has shown this to be thermogenic shale gas. That includes DEP, Cabot, and the homeowners. While there are cases of naturally occurring gas migration, it is almost always minimal amounts nowhere near the 28 mg/l limit. It is also almost always biogenic in origin. I'm not sure if the EPA has done isotopic testing on the methane as of yet. However, the ratio of ethane to methane does point to it being thermogenic.

Personally, I'd love for it to come to an end. I think if Cabot had sprung for the water line this would have all been put to bed already. Instead of paying for the pipeline, they opted to shell out for a PR campaign and now water deliveries to people who weren't initially involved in all of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I'm not sure of the real reasons Cabot didn't want to build the pipeline. In my opinion, it had a lot less to do with the money, than it did with what would follow.

I believe one of their concerns had to be...."Would that have opened a door for them to be required to supply the whole county with a new water source".....kinda thing.

I do have to wonder if the pipeline would have put all this to rest? Can't help but wonder if that would have been enough for the people involved in the lawsuit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,487 Posts
Can't help but wonder if that would have been enough for the people involved in the lawsuit?
Probably depends on what was more important to them: Water, or money?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
One of the problems with putting the water line in if they are not responsible is that the public would have been fed a steady diet of "Why put the line in if you weren't responsible?" This is what happens when an industry goes out of it's way to help the people in the area, they become responsible even if they are not. Very seldom are water wells ruined due to gas well drilling, yet industry, many times, will have water buffaloes brought in and supply water even before there is any clear responsible party. (this was done long before there were regulations requiring it) That is the right thing to do. Yet the news never gets out or worse yet, the media, even in the face of evidence, such as Dimock, will say this just can't be true!
and all natural gas in aquifers is not biogenic. Thermogenic gas is present in water supplies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
1trueamerican said:
One of the problems with putting the water line in if they are not responsible is that the public would have been fed a steady diet of "Why put the line in if you weren't responsible?" This is what happens when an industry goes out of it's way to help the people in the area, they become responsible even if they are not. Very seldom are water wells ruined due to gas well drilling, yet industry, many times, will have water buffaloes brought in and supply water even before there is any clear responsible party. (this was done long before there were regulations requiring it) That is the right thing to do. Yet the news never gets out or worse yet, the media, even in the face of evidence, such as Dimock, will say this just can't be true!
and all natural gas in aquifers is not biogenic. Thermogenic gas is present in water supplies.
I agree, pretty much the point I was tring to make.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top