The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Tax Dollars or Gas Company Dollars?

(Reuters) - Federal regulators are considering trucking fresh water to households in a Pennsylvania town where residents say wells have been polluted by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas.

Only a month after declaring water in Dimock safe to drink, the Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering action after residents supplied the EPA with hundreds of pages of data that link water pollution to fracking.

Two residents of Dimock, a town of some 1,400 in the northeast corner of Pennsylvania, told Reuters that the EPA said water would be delivered on Friday, but the agency indicated it was still considering the issue.

"No decision has been made by EPA to provide alternate sources of water," an EPA spokeswoman said in an email on Friday. She added that the agency was trying to understand the situation in Dimock where state regulators recently halted deliveries of fresh water.

If the EPA delivers water to the village, it would be the clearest sign yet regulators are concerned about the effect of drilling on drinking water there.

Dimock may become pivotal in a national debate about the environmental impact of fracking, the drilling technique that could unlock decades' worth of natural gas trapped in shale deposits, but which environmentalists say contaminates water supplies.

On Thursday, the EPA said it was considering doing its own tests on drinking water there after reviewing the evidence provided by residents that suggested that water could be more polluted than they realized.

Dimock residents began complaining of cloudy, foul-smelling water in 2008 after Cabot Oil & Gas Corp began fracking, which involves injecting chemical-laced water and sand into wells to release gas in shale rock deep below the surface.

Environmentalists say fracking pollutes fresh water as fluids seep from drilling wells into aquifers and other supply sources.

Cabot had trucked water to a dozen Dimock households for three years until November when state regulators agreed it could stop. Now residents are onto the last of their water. Some are using pondwater for showers.

Cabot denies polluting local water supplies.

"We still feel very comfortable that the water meets safe drinking water standards," said Cabot spokesman George Stark. "We have a lot of data on well water there."

As fracking increases in the United States and contributes to an energy boom, the EPA is conducting a national study to determine its impacts.

A recent EPA draft report showed that harmful chemicals from fracking fluids were likely present in a Wyoming aquifer near the town of Pavillion.

Industry denies that fracking, which is being done across the country, poses a threat to drinking water.

(Reporting By Edward McAllister in New York and Timothy Gardner in Washington; editing by Jim Marshall and Marguerita Choy)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/201..._sectionstories

Strange situation. Friday the EPA tells residents they will be delivering water. Saturday, the EPA tells residents they are still evaluating the situation and no water is being delivered.

In answer to your question. I have no clue. I'd assume the taxpayers will be paying for it as Cabot has fulfilled their obligations as far as the DEP is concerned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,057 Posts
anybody ever watch the movie "erin Brockovich"

that towns water wasnt polluted either. isay fill up gallon jugs of the stuff and have the EPA and drilling company CEO's drink it and bathe in it.

bet they wont.

gotta wonder if any of the drilling company execs live in areas where they do some fracking. (NOPE)

thats why they say everythings ok...pass the kool-aid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
DEP found that Cabot was responsible for methane migration in some Dimock water wells. The methane migration issue was corrected. Water wells were tested and found to meet or exceed federal drinking water standards. Cabot returned the wells to prepollution standards, plugged the supposed offending wells, offered methane "filtering" systems to all of the residents (most took Cabot up on these systems) and paid their fines. What more must the drilling company do?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
g17 said:
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20120107/NEWS01/201070354/Federal-agency-cancels-water-delivery-Dimock?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

Strange situation. Friday the EPA tells residents they will be delivering water. Saturday, the EPA tells residents they are still evaluating the situation and no water is being delivered.

In answer to your question. I have no clue. I'd assume the taxpayers will be paying for it as Cabot has fulfilled their obligations as far as the DEP is concerned.
The EPA is politicizing this, they should stay out of this situation. They have no regulatory authority, and even less scientific information concerning what happened in Dimock. From what I hear, this is a few of the Dimock residents who dislike drilling that are continuing this saga.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
A quick explanation of Dimocks methane issue

Final Resolution to Dimock, PA Water Problem?

Dimock, PA has been a rallying cry for many who oppose shale gas drilling. For those with only a peripheral knowledge of the struggle, the word Dimock conjures up an image of nasty hydraulic fracturing fluids seeping into ground water supplies and contaminating them so they are now undrinkable by humans or animals. But such an image would be wrong.

What happened in Dimock, according to the PA State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is that the drilling company Cabot Oil & Gas did not properly case (enclose the bore hole), which led to methane (natural gas) escaping through cracks into the local water supply for area homes. Methane gas in water does not kill when consumed, but it can become an explosion hazard as happened with one local water well in the area.

Cabot has always maintained its wells were cased properly and that the methane in the area is naturally occurring and existed in local water supplies long before they arrived on the scene with their drilling rigs. The DEP said Cabot contributed to the problem and slapped them with fines and made them plug several wells (for more background details, see this MDN story and this MDN story).

The end result was that Cabot was required to pay a lot of money, and is still on the hook to truck in potable water to 14 homes and to install permanent water treatment systems in those homes. Cabot has installed those systems and now wants to end trucking potable water since the water treatment systems are removing virtually all methane from the water, at least in the homes that have allowed Cabot to test.

The company [Cabot] asked the department [DEP] to allow it to stop delivering replacement bottled and bulk water to the affected homes by Nov. 30 and to resume drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations "immediately" in a 9-square-mile area around Carter Road that has been off-limits to the driller since April 2010.

"The primary reason to discontinue these temporary water supplies now is, simply, that they are no longer needed," Cabot’s Vice President and Regional Manager Phillip L. Stalnaker wrote.

Cabot spokesman George Stark said the elevated levels of methane revealed by [recent] tests illustrates that the county has "naturally occurring" methane "that is neither fixed nor predictable" and fluctuations occur because of water use, barometric pressure and water well maintenance and construction.

"Water treatment systems work," he said, adding that the treatment systems Cabot has installed for several of the affected homes remove 96 to 98 percent of the methane.

Eighty percent of about 2,000 groundwater samples Cabot has taken before drilling in Susquehanna County have "detectable levels of methane," he said.

The company argued in its report to DEP on Monday that the groundwater in Dimock "meets all applicable DEP requirements" and "there is no valid technical reason" for Cabot to continue providing residents with replacement water.*

The clock is now ticking, although the DEP has to first approve Cabot’s request. If they do approve it, Cabot will either wait until the end of November to end water deliveries, or for those families who still refuse to have their new water treatment systems tested, Cabot will end water deliveries sooner. It appears Cabot’s patience is growing thin and they are now using a carrot and a stick to try and bring this to resolution.

The company plans to write notices to all of the affected families on or before Nov. 1 to offer the free services of a plumber for 60 days to reconnect their water wells to their homes or install a methane removal system.

"For those property owners who refuse to allow testing of their permanent water well supply, Cabot will discontinue deliveries at its earliest opportunity, and will not wait until November 30, 2011 to discontinue deliveries of fresh water," Mr. Stalnaker wrote.*

*The Scranton Times Tribune (Oct 19, 2011) – Cabot argues to resume drilling in Dimock as tests show surges of methane in water wells
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Ever hear of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Interesting document. Google it up for PADEP and the EPA!

It will be US Tax Dollars.... if.... water is trucked in.

Other States are watching Pennsylvania's Gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
1trueamerican said:
g17 said:
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20120107/NEWS01/201070354/Federal-agency-cancels-water-delivery-Dimock?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

Strange situation. Friday the EPA tells residents they will be delivering water. Saturday, the EPA tells residents they are still evaluating the situation and no water is being delivered.

In answer to your question. I have no clue. I'd assume the taxpayers will be paying for it as Cabot has fulfilled their obligations as far as the DEP is concerned.
The EPA is politicizing this, they should stay out of this situation. They have no regulatory authority, and even less scientific information concerning what happened in Dimock. From what I hear, this is a few of the Dimock residents who dislike drilling that are continuing this saga.
From what I've seen, the Residents have 100's of pages of data including pre-drill testing. Cabot and the DEP seem to want to make this a methane only issue. Methane (other than explosion risks, is really not that bad in water - easily removed. Chemicals - not so much) Cabot's own testing shows there is much more than methane in the water.

Cabot's pre-drill testing:
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

Cabot's testing which was released in December:
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
26,979 Posts
Those who are proclaiming there is no danger, don't worry, trust the drillers and those who proclaim wide spread devastation of of water tables and streams and wildlife habitat are both wrong. However, somewhere in the middle the truth lies and only time will tell who is closer to the truth on gas drilling in this state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
and not all of those chemicals are used in fracing so i wonder how they got in the water table ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
John S said:
Those who are proclaiming there is no danger, don't worry, trust the drillers and those who proclaim wide spread devastation of of water tables and streams and wildlife habitat are both wrong. However, somewhere in the middle the truth lies and only time will tell who is closer to the truth on gas drilling in this state.
Thousands of wells have been fraced in PA without any contamination of water wells prior to Marcellus shale drilling, this is a red herring being used by anti drilling factions who want to end all drilling in the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
buzz said:
and not all of those chemicals are used in fracing so i wonder how they got in the water table ?
And you would know this how? There has yet to be a list of fracking additives released without proprietary (trade secret) compounds.

Note page 12 on the following Committee On Energy and Commerce Minority Staff Report from April, 2011 which clearly states: It appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing UNKNOWN chemicals.

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.go...t%204.18.11.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
1trueamerican said:
John S said:
Those who are proclaiming there is no danger, don't worry, trust the drillers and those who proclaim wide spread devastation of of water tables and streams and wildlife habitat are both wrong. However, somewhere in the middle the truth lies and only time will tell who is closer to the truth on gas drilling in this state.
Thousands of wells have been fraced in PA without any contamination of water wells prior to Marcellus shale drilling, this is a red herring being used by anti drilling factions who want to end all drilling in the country.
That's akin to saying seatbelts and airbags are not necessary expenses because thousands of people drive everyday in PA without having accidents. I, for one, do not want to see drilling stopped. I would like to see the exemptions to the clean air and water acts removed, tracer isotopes in each future well, and FULL disclosure of chemical additives to fracking fluid. (NO proprietary or trade secret compounds)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
1trueamerican said:
fracing does not cause water well contamination.
Maybe we should change that statement to gas drilling hardly ever causes water well contamination?

http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.d...e.html?nav=5011

DEP investigated private water well complaints from residents of Bradford County's Tuscarora, Terry, Monroe, Towanda and Wilmot townships near Chesapeake's shale drilling operations last year and determined that because of improper well casing and cementing in shallow zones, which the drilling has to go in order to get to the Marcellus Shale, natural gas from non-shale shallow gas formations had experienced localized migration into groundwater and contaminated 16 families' drinking water supplies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Not against drilling or fracking. Think there are issues and the process needs to be monitored.

Would bet that after a good rain storm...there is pollution off a Walmart,Lowes etc., parking lot entering the soil and watershed that exceeds some of the findings in these reports, just from vehicle drips.

Time will tell

Yep - Time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
g17 said:
1trueamerican said:
fracing does not cause water well contamination.
Maybe we should change that statement to gas drilling hardly ever causes water well contamination?

http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.d...e.html?nav=5011

DEP investigated private water well complaints from residents of Bradford County's Tuscarora, Terry, Monroe, Towanda and Wilmot townships near Chesapeake's shale drilling operations last year and determined that because of improper well casing and cementing in shallow zones, which the drilling has to go in order to get to the Marcellus Shale, natural gas from non-shale shallow gas formations had experienced localized migration into groundwater and contaminated 16 families' drinking water supplies.
you seem to be confused...is fracing causing contamination or is drilling causing contamination?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
1trueamerican said:
g17 said:
1trueamerican said:
fracing does not cause water well contamination.
Maybe we should change that statement to gas drilling hardly ever causes water well contamination?

http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.d...e.html?nav=5011

DEP investigated private water well complaints from residents of Bradford County's Tuscarora, Terry, Monroe, Towanda and Wilmot townships near Chesapeake's shale drilling operations last year and determined that because of improper well casing and cementing in shallow zones, which the drilling has to go in order to get to the Marcellus Shale, natural gas from non-shale shallow gas formations had experienced localized migration into groundwater and contaminated 16 families' drinking water supplies.
you seem to be confused...is fracing causing contamination or is drilling causing contamination?
No confusion about it at all. The industry tries to muddy the waters (pardon the pun) by stating no documented cases of contamination due to fracking. What they don't say is that fracking is the minute moment of time when the well is fracked.. not before, not after just one moment. Notice the industry doesn't say there has never been a case of contamination due to gas drilling operations?

To clear it up for you, I look at the entire process, not just one segment of it. I mean going by the industry strategies, I'm surprised they don't say gas drilling is 100 percent safe because there has never been an issue of water well contamination due to laying a concrete well pad....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
g17 said:
buzz said:
and not all of those chemicals are used in fracing so i wonder how they got in the water table ?
And you would know this how? There has yet to be a list of fracking additives released without proprietary (trade secret) compounds.

Note page 12 on the following Committee On Energy and Commerce Minority Staff Report from April, 2011 which clearly states: It appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing UNKNOWN chemicals.

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.go...t%204.18.11.pdf

: http://thetimes-tribune.com/cabot-dimock...1#ixzz1gWCP65qx



The drilling company said the toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene found in the drinking water could not have come from hydraulic fracturing fluids used in its Marcellus Shale drilling operations because its service contractors do not use those chemicals

................................................

i was refering to this article. just because something was found in the water doesnt mean it came from fracing. lots of ways it could get there including dumping down the water well itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
I'll refer you again to the pdf.

Note page 12 on the following Committee On Energy and Commerce Minority Staff Report from April, 2011 which clearly states: It appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing UNKNOWN chemicals.

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.go...t%204.18.11.pdf

How can Cabot say they aren't using those chemicals if they are purchasing compounds from Halliburton or Schlumberger which are trade secret or proprietary blends? The fact is they wouldn't know what is in them.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top