The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Cabot test results of the residents' water supplies that had been marked confidential in litigation between the company and 11 of the affected families were released publicly in early December, after the EPA performed its preliminary review. Those tests, taken in August and September by a Cabot contractor, showed elevated levels of metals and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, a plasticizer commonly called DEHP. They also detected other chemicals including glycols, which are used in antifreeze, surfactants, and 2-methoxyethanol, a solvent, in the drinking water wells.

Read more: http://citizensvoice.com/news/epa-dimock...e#ixzz1i7kLt1U2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It's still in effect. These people are still having to get their own water trucked in for now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,519 Posts
So essentially, EPA is attempting to "over rule" DEP and reopen this can of worms again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Being that DEP based their decison on a 2010 COA and not on water testing results, I for one am glad to see the EPA intervene. Based on Cabot's testing, I would not use that water, would you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
didnt they already take money from Cabot, I thought the settelement was for twice the asessed value of there home. Would this be above and behond the original settelment ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
g17 said:
Being that DEP based their decison on a 2010 COA and not on water testing results, I for one am glad to see the EPA intervene. Based on Cabot's testing, I would not use that water, would you?
If you truly believe that the dep did not retest these folks water wells before the decision was made to stop water deliveries then you are more uninformed than I thought. There is no way dep would not take their own samples in such a high profile case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
DennyF said:
So essentially, EPA is attempting to "over rule" DEP and reopen this can of worms again.
Feds getting involved because the outcome is not what they wanted to see. There are still a few residents of carter road that will never be satisfied. The only issue in dimock from day one was methane, probably naturally occurring, but, since these were some of the first wells drilled there may have been some additional shallow gas disturbed and allowed to get into the individuals water wells. most of the folks up there KNOW that methane was always present in their water.
Now since the methane issue was fixed, the couple of residents that are complaining are bringing up new issues such as the "other" substances that are in their water wells. These were never mentioned in the original complaint and probably were there before any drilling occurred.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The people involved in this have not accepted Cabot's offer of twice the assessed value of their homes. (nothing for the land) They are trying to force the issue of the original COA, which was to run a water line from Montrose to Dimock. (In my opinion that would be fair as these people were not anti-drilling, they had a contract with Cabot that stated if the water was messed up they would restore it to it's original state)

The DEP absolved Cabot of water deliveries upon, among other conditions, that Cabot place the money in an escrow account. (I believe 6 families did accept this but 11 did not) DEP's decision to allow Cabot to cease water deliveries was not based on water sampling data but rather, the current COA (money in escrow and offer methane mitigation devices, etc). I believe this is why the locals involved in this contacted the EPA. The EPA originally sided with the DEP in the decision but as the story noted above shows they seem to be changing their mind in the wake of Cabot's water testing data being released earlier this month.

In any case, the lawsuit is still pending. In watching this story develop, I really do wish the industry would utilize tracing isotopes in the gas wells. That would have definitely settled this years ago one way or the other. It's kind of sad watching that community being torn apart as the two sides square off at each other. It gets kind of heated in surrounding communities as well.( I live about 20 miles from Dimock)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
1trueamerican said:
g17 said:
Being that DEP based their decison on a 2010 COA and not on water testing results, I for one am glad to see the EPA intervene. Based on Cabot's testing, I would not use that water, would you?
If you truly believe that the dep did not retest these folks water wells before the decision was made to stop water deliveries then you are more uninformed than I thought. There is no way dep would not take their own samples in such a high profile case.
In 2010, the COA between Cabot and DEP was revised twice. The final agree­ment, reached in Decem­ber, is the doc­u­ment dic­tat­ing the agency’s cur­rent stance. In it, Cabot makes it clear the com­pany dis­agrees with DEP’s find­ings, “how­ever, Cabot agrees to and shall full­fil all of the terms and oblig­a­tions of this Con­sent Order and Agree­ment Set­tle­ment.” The Decem­ber 2010 doc­u­ment laid out harsh penal­ties for the driller. It required Cabot to pay the impacted fam­i­lies set­tle­ments worth twice their prop­erty val­ues, a total Hanger said exceeded $4 mil­lion. But the doc­u­ment DID NOT INCLUDE WATER TESTING as a cri­te­ria for Cabot to stop pro­vid­ing clean water to the impacted families.

Instead, Cabot had to ful­fill the fol­low­ing obligations:

deposit the set­tle­ment money into escrow accounts
notify the fam­i­lies and DEP that the money was available
install a “gas mit­i­ga­tion device” (a water fil­ter) at each residence

In Octo­ber, Cabot informed DEP it had met all these require­ments, and asked for per­mis­sion to stop deliv­er­ing water to the Dimock fam­i­lies. Act­ing Deputy Sec­re­tary Scott Perry approved the request, and Cabot stopped pro­vid­ing water on Decem­ber 1. In a let­ter to the Cham­bers­burg Pub­lic Opin­ion, Sec­re­tary Mike Krancer defended the deci­sion. “We were guided by a legal agree­ment dat­ing to the pre­vi­ous admin­is­tra­tion,” he wrote. “The agreement…required Cabot to sat­isfy spe­cific water pro­vi­sion oblig­a­tions and meet cer­tain requirements….Cabot sat­is­fied those require­ments, and the law, in turn, requires DEP to fol­low its obligations.”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
1trueamerican said:
DennyF said:
So essentially, EPA is attempting to "over rule" DEP and reopen this can of worms again.
These were never mentioned in the original complaint and probably were there before any drilling occurred.
But a spokesman for Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. said those chemicals - toluene, benzene and surfectants - were not detected in 2008 in pre-drill samples taken at more than a dozen nearby water supplies along Carter Road in Dimock

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/cabot-dimock...1#ixzz1i9mYvPlF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
contrary to popular belief, I'm not saying drilling should be stopped. I do however believe the following should be enacted to ensure it is done safely:

Remove the industries exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Remove the industries exemption from the Clean Water Act.
Remove the industries exemption from the Clean Air Act.
Remove the industries exemption from the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Remove the industries exemption from the Toxic Relase Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
Utilize a decades old technology of tracing isotopes in each and every future gas well. (will effectively end any debate of contamination issues - no tracer - no contamination)
Full disclosure of chemicals being used. (reports containing proprietary and trade secret items is not full disclosure).

Personally, I don't think that's too much to ask.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
g17 said:
The people involved in this have not accepted Cabot's offer of twice the assessed value of their homes. (nothing for the land) They are trying to force the issue of the original COA, which was to run a water line from Montrose to Dimock. (In my opinion that would be fair as these people were not anti-drilling, they had a contract with Cabot that stated if the water was messed up they would restore it to it's original state)

The DEP absolved Cabot of water deliveries upon, among other conditions, that Cabot place the money in an escrow account. (I believe 6 families did accept this but 11 did not) DEP's decision to allow Cabot to cease water deliveries was not based on water sampling data but rather, the current COA (money in escrow and offer methane mitigation devices, etc). I believe this is why the locals involved in this contacted the EPA. The EPA originally sided with the DEP in the decision but as the story noted above shows they seem to be changing their mind in the wake of Cabot's water testing data being released earlier this month.

In any case, the lawsuit is still pending. In watching this story develop, I really do wish the industry would utilize tracing isotopes in the gas wells. That would have definitely settled this years ago one way or the other. It's kind of sad watching that community being torn apart as the two sides square off at each other. It gets kind of heated in surrounding communities as well.( I live about 20 miles from Dimock)

i thought the assessed value included the land, isn't that how taxes are based, house and land all in one ?

i know some people who signed contracts with gas comps cuz they wanted the quick money, then did not like the fact that the gas comps actualy drilled on there land, and became anti gas/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
buzz said:
i thought the assessed value included the land, isn't that how taxes are based, house and land all in one ?

i know some people who signed contracts with gas comps cuz they wanted the quick money, then did not like the fact that the gas comps actualy drilled on there land, and became anti gas/
While taxes are based on land and improvement all in one, If you look at your tax bill you will see the values of each listed separately.

As to someone signing a lease and becoming upset when drilling started, well they are idiots.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top