Really Otto? On what are you basing your assessment? Are you familiar with the the tactics used by some of these contractors? More importantly, are you familiar with their shortcuts? And before you start thinking i am some sort of tree hugger whacko, i am actually not opposed to fracking. But given the extremely limited amount of information in the article, and the practices of some of the people involved in this industry, you cannot make your bs detemination with any degree of accuracy. if you have in-depth knowledge of this specific case, then please share it with everyone so they can agree with you on the basis of facts.
Good comments, MikeP. If it were Otto’s child, I wonder if he would be so cavalier without determining the facts. All industries have their less responsible players. Look at how the BP situation in the Gulf escalated over time. Truth will win out in this one.
It unlikely that these wells were contaminatded by frac fluids. If they were it was a either a short cut or a bad cementing job on the casing job in which case that cementing contractor should be held accountable. The Penn DEQ is going to have to set reqiurements before the lease holders of Penn are comfortable with the horizontal drilling and the staged frac production/stimulation process. A best practice may be to set a standard for surfacc casing to extned 300 – 500 – 1000 feet below the last known private or public aquifer. The contractor could then be reqired to run either or both a positive and/or negative casing test, a test to determine the effectivness of the casing cement job. The PDEQ could even witness the test and or have all the docuements sent to them and analyzed asap, setting acceptance criteria and standards. Just my thoughts and opinion. Just a possible solution to a gas play that could really do a lot of good for the people and economy in the marcellus shale area. P
The gas lobby is hard at work to get to the gas before they are found liable. Fact is that I remember how the coal companies stripped the land in western PA and then they left, filed for bankruptcy and that was the end of it. Folks should have their wells tested BEFORE any drilling so they can “attempt” to develop any causality, because the drillers will deny it until they are dragged into court and have to settle. Don’t believe the gas extractors for one minute; in PA one company did the right thing and provided a list of the chemicals and solvents they are injecting into the ground. You’d be surprised to see the 100 or so they listed; none of these are harmless, but as long as you don’t drink the water every day for your whole life, you won’t die but your children will or at least they will have cancers etc. WHY CAN’T THEY DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS FEWER DRAWBACKS? Why can’t they drill without just ignoring pollution? Why not find a way to extract the gas without having ANY potential? It is precisely that they can’t find a DIRECT link, that they insist there is nothing to worry about. That is the B.S., that this can be done without hurting the environment or people. the media is being used to advertise their claims, while they condemn that film about the harm they have already done. And what about the resultant discharge? Where does that go, to a containment pond, where it can sit for a thousand years? The tradeoff for the gas is our future health and well-being, the land-owners whoe leased the property are the only ones who profit; what do they care about their neighbors? I say, let’s tax ’em, mandate a clean-up plan, and have them report on a quarterly basis any untoward levels of the fracking fluids in and out so we can audit their production. that is the prudent thing to do, make them good neighbors as well as business partners. Let them drink the water and see for themselves….
People who are opposed to something sometimes will take drastic measures. I am not saying anyone in this case did wrong.
Several years ago a man built a house next to a farm near me. He opposed the farmer putting the manure back on his fields even though the farm had been there for generations. He claimed in lawsuits that the manure caused birth defects in a child.
Since I knew both people involved I was ask to witness a water sampling for both parties. The health department rep and myself went to the house. They ran water for a few minutes to clear out sediment in the pipes and then a sample was taken by both the health department and then the home owner. The health department sample came back no contamination but the home owners sample, sent to an independent lab, came back contaminated.
“Well, those of you who have been following this case will recall that after EPA first suggested Dimock water was safe to use, it then announced it would conduct further water tests because additional review of Cabot and DEP data showed, among other things, arsenic in one well at a level that posed a potential concern. Here is what the EPA said:
Arsenic (37 ug/L) was observed at a concentration that would pose a long-term cancer risk of 8E-04. This represents an imminent and substantial threat. Additionally, the detected concentration of arsenic exceeds its MCL (10 ug/L). Note that two toddlers reside at this location.
Sounds horrific, right? Well, get this. That sample wasn’t even well water, as one would logically assume from the statement. It was a sample of water brought in from the Borough of Montrose to supply the homeowner before DEP wisely told Cabot it no longer had to deliver water . Moreover, there was no excessive arsenic, as it turns out upon further review of the data. Yes, you read that correctly – the actual well water samples taken at this residence, and the other three residences, all indicate arsenic levels below the EPA standard for drinking water!
So, what we have here is U.S. EPA saying it needs to conduct testing at 61 private water wells at a cost of over $200,000 to the U.S. taxpayer based on a faulty Arsenic reading for trucked-in water, rather than well water. Why wasn’t the reading correct? Well, barium and arsenic readings got transposed when the data was recorded, but the bottom line is that it was not well water! Let me repeat that – it was not well water . And, the EPA has built it’s case for intervention on the false premise that it was well water when it was not. The EPA has set in course an expensive testing program and is delivering water based on a sample of trucked-in water. It’s premise for taking Superfund action was largely one based upon the presence of arsenic that doesn’t exist at the levels suggested. So, what the heck is the EPA doing in Dimock?
Salt of the Earth or Water Softener?
The thought that it’s this easy to trigger action by a Federal agency ought to send shivers up the spine of anyone who is doing anything with their property. That being said, the arsenic oversight only scratches the surface. EPA also identified sodium as a reason to stretch its regulatory authority under the Superfund law to usurp PA DEP’s regulatory authority and insert itself into the Dimock litigation. Now, bear in mind, Dimock is not a Superfund site and there is no EPA standard for sodium (or salt as it is more commonly known). Yet, EPA said the following for water supplies it labelled as Residence 3 and Residence 4 (the latter being the home of Craig and Julie Sautner):
Residence 3: Sodium (110,000 ug/L) exceeded its Secondary MCL (20,000 ug/L). Sensitive individuals, such as those with hypertension or renal deficits, should be aware of this sodium source and minimize dietary intake, as necessary.
Residence 4: Similar to above (Resident 3), sodium was observed at this residence (82,900 ug/L) in excess of its Secondary MCL (20,000 ug/L).
You might wonder why I’m saying there is no EPA standard when EPA is talking about Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL’s). That is a good question. Well, this is where the brazen nature of EPA’s actions comes sharply into focus, the standard they’re talking about is not an adopted safe drinking water standard but a proposed one not yet even approved by the agency!
Moreover, note the standard EPA references is secondary, meaning that it is established for aesthetic and guidance purposes and is not enforceable, even if it were to be in place, which it is not. It is, to be fair, on the EPA Contaminant Candidate List, but sodium is not regulated. There are, in fact, ongoing discussions about raising the threshold even as a matter of guidance. According to EPA itself:
sodium posed a unique challenge for the Agency priority setting and contaminant candidate listing process. On one hand, high levels of salt intake may be associated with hypertension in some individuals. On the other hand, sodium levels in drinking water are usually low and unlikely to be a significant contribution to adverse health effects.
EPA faced a dilemma on whether or not to list sodium. A decision not to list would be justified by the fact that much is known about sodium, and it does not appear to be a drinking water risk comparable to other priority contaminants. In fact, this was the logic supporting the decision not to include sodium on the previous drinking water priority list in 1991
Are we to suppose this is a basis for a Superfund action? How does the EPA expect anyone but the most fervent and gullible anti-natural gas development interests to take this act seriously?”
Total BS
Really Otto? On what are you basing your assessment? Are you familiar with the the tactics used by some of these contractors? More importantly, are you familiar with their shortcuts? And before you start thinking i am some sort of tree hugger whacko, i am actually not opposed to fracking. But given the extremely limited amount of information in the article, and the practices of some of the people involved in this industry, you cannot make your bs detemination with any degree of accuracy. if you have in-depth knowledge of this specific case, then please share it with everyone so they can agree with you on the basis of facts.
Good comments, MikeP. If it were Otto’s child, I wonder if he would be so cavalier without determining the facts. All industries have their less responsible players. Look at how the BP situation in the Gulf escalated over time. Truth will win out in this one.
It unlikely that these wells were contaminatded by frac fluids. If they were it was a either a short cut or a bad cementing job on the casing job in which case that cementing contractor should be held accountable. The Penn DEQ is going to have to set reqiurements before the lease holders of Penn are comfortable with the horizontal drilling and the staged frac production/stimulation process. A best practice may be to set a standard for surfacc casing to extned 300 – 500 – 1000 feet below the last known private or public aquifer. The contractor could then be reqired to run either or both a positive and/or negative casing test, a test to determine the effectivness of the casing cement job. The PDEQ could even witness the test and or have all the docuements sent to them and analyzed asap, setting acceptance criteria and standards. Just my thoughts and opinion. Just a possible solution to a gas play that could really do a lot of good for the people and economy in the marcellus shale area. P
The gas lobby is hard at work to get to the gas before they are found liable. Fact is that I remember how the coal companies stripped the land in western PA and then they left, filed for bankruptcy and that was the end of it. Folks should have their wells tested BEFORE any drilling so they can “attempt” to develop any causality, because the drillers will deny it until they are dragged into court and have to settle. Don’t believe the gas extractors for one minute; in PA one company did the right thing and provided a list of the chemicals and solvents they are injecting into the ground. You’d be surprised to see the 100 or so they listed; none of these are harmless, but as long as you don’t drink the water every day for your whole life, you won’t die but your children will or at least they will have cancers etc. WHY CAN’T THEY DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS FEWER DRAWBACKS? Why can’t they drill without just ignoring pollution? Why not find a way to extract the gas without having ANY potential? It is precisely that they can’t find a DIRECT link, that they insist there is nothing to worry about. That is the B.S., that this can be done without hurting the environment or people. the media is being used to advertise their claims, while they condemn that film about the harm they have already done. And what about the resultant discharge? Where does that go, to a containment pond, where it can sit for a thousand years? The tradeoff for the gas is our future health and well-being, the land-owners whoe leased the property are the only ones who profit; what do they care about their neighbors? I say, let’s tax ’em, mandate a clean-up plan, and have them report on a quarterly basis any untoward levels of the fracking fluids in and out so we can audit their production. that is the prudent thing to do, make them good neighbors as well as business partners. Let them drink the water and see for themselves….
People who are opposed to something sometimes will take drastic measures. I am not saying anyone in this case did wrong.
Several years ago a man built a house next to a farm near me. He opposed the farmer putting the manure back on his fields even though the farm had been there for generations. He claimed in lawsuits that the manure caused birth defects in a child.
Since I knew both people involved I was ask to witness a water sampling for both parties. The health department rep and myself went to the house. They ran water for a few minutes to clear out sediment in the pipes and then a sample was taken by both the health department and then the home owner. The health department sample came back no contamination but the home owners sample, sent to an independent lab, came back contaminated.
the following is taken from> http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/epas-comedy-of-errors-in-dimock/
“Well, those of you who have been following this case will recall that after EPA first suggested Dimock water was safe to use, it then announced it would conduct further water tests because additional review of Cabot and DEP data showed, among other things, arsenic in one well at a level that posed a potential concern. Here is what the EPA said:
Arsenic (37 ug/L) was observed at a concentration that would pose a long-term cancer risk of 8E-04. This represents an imminent and substantial threat. Additionally, the detected concentration of arsenic exceeds its MCL (10 ug/L). Note that two toddlers reside at this location.
Sounds horrific, right? Well, get this. That sample wasn’t even well water, as one would logically assume from the statement. It was a sample of water brought in from the Borough of Montrose to supply the homeowner before DEP wisely told Cabot it no longer had to deliver water . Moreover, there was no excessive arsenic, as it turns out upon further review of the data. Yes, you read that correctly – the actual well water samples taken at this residence, and the other three residences, all indicate arsenic levels below the EPA standard for drinking water!
So, what we have here is U.S. EPA saying it needs to conduct testing at 61 private water wells at a cost of over $200,000 to the U.S. taxpayer based on a faulty Arsenic reading for trucked-in water, rather than well water. Why wasn’t the reading correct? Well, barium and arsenic readings got transposed when the data was recorded, but the bottom line is that it was not well water! Let me repeat that – it was not well water . And, the EPA has built it’s case for intervention on the false premise that it was well water when it was not. The EPA has set in course an expensive testing program and is delivering water based on a sample of trucked-in water. It’s premise for taking Superfund action was largely one based upon the presence of arsenic that doesn’t exist at the levels suggested. So, what the heck is the EPA doing in Dimock?
Salt of the Earth or Water Softener?
The thought that it’s this easy to trigger action by a Federal agency ought to send shivers up the spine of anyone who is doing anything with their property. That being said, the arsenic oversight only scratches the surface. EPA also identified sodium as a reason to stretch its regulatory authority under the Superfund law to usurp PA DEP’s regulatory authority and insert itself into the Dimock litigation. Now, bear in mind, Dimock is not a Superfund site and there is no EPA standard for sodium (or salt as it is more commonly known). Yet, EPA said the following for water supplies it labelled as Residence 3 and Residence 4 (the latter being the home of Craig and Julie Sautner):
Residence 3: Sodium (110,000 ug/L) exceeded its Secondary MCL (20,000 ug/L). Sensitive individuals, such as those with hypertension or renal deficits, should be aware of this sodium source and minimize dietary intake, as necessary.
Residence 4: Similar to above (Resident 3), sodium was observed at this residence (82,900 ug/L) in excess of its Secondary MCL (20,000 ug/L).
You might wonder why I’m saying there is no EPA standard when EPA is talking about Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL’s). That is a good question. Well, this is where the brazen nature of EPA’s actions comes sharply into focus, the standard they’re talking about is not an adopted safe drinking water standard but a proposed one not yet even approved by the agency!
Moreover, note the standard EPA references is secondary, meaning that it is established for aesthetic and guidance purposes and is not enforceable, even if it were to be in place, which it is not. It is, to be fair, on the EPA Contaminant Candidate List, but sodium is not regulated. There are, in fact, ongoing discussions about raising the threshold even as a matter of guidance. According to EPA itself:
sodium posed a unique challenge for the Agency priority setting and contaminant candidate listing process. On one hand, high levels of salt intake may be associated with hypertension in some individuals. On the other hand, sodium levels in drinking water are usually low and unlikely to be a significant contribution to adverse health effects.
EPA faced a dilemma on whether or not to list sodium. A decision not to list would be justified by the fact that much is known about sodium, and it does not appear to be a drinking water risk comparable to other priority contaminants. In fact, this was the logic supporting the decision not to include sodium on the previous drinking water priority list in 1991
Are we to suppose this is a basis for a Superfund action? How does the EPA expect anyone but the most fervent and gullible anti-natural gas development interests to take this act seriously?”
then there’s this timeline> http://www.energyindepth.org/you-missed-a-spot-a-timeline-of-hydraulic-fracturing/