EPA Says (Yet Again) Dimock Water Is Safe
How many times does it take for everyone to realize the Dimock water is safe and uncontaminated by natural gas development?
http://eidmarcellus.org/marcellus-shale/more-data-from-dimock-epa-c...
Views: 1821
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ji on
-
another rancid fairy dust incident by Cabot.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/48182083/Cabot%20O%26G%20Stalter%20NOV%209-...
-
-
how did it turn out ji?
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on -
The rancid "Fairy Dust" incident was near Dimock.
This insignificant little hiccup near Lenox (which is old news) has likely been solved by a "squeeze job" on a couple wells.
My personal opinion is that "Pixie Dandruff" was somehow involved; but this is just a guess.
All IMHO,
JS
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on
-
The report states "There were a number of possible avenues for natural gas to enter residences via ground water, including
1) unvented water wells located in basements,
2) abandoned and unplugged water wells in basements, and
3) wells with indoor well pumps."
Also from the referenced report:
"The occurrence of natural gas in ground water for wells developed in the Berea-Bedford sequence is common in Geauga County. This finding is based upon interviews with local residents, water well drillers, a review of records for the Bainbridge Police Dept. well, and measurements from the control sample sites. In October 2004, the DMRM conducted an investigation of a complaint regarding natural gas in the Bainbridge Township Fire Department public water supply well. The DMRM concluded that the presence of gas was natural occurring and resulted from completion of the well in the Devonian Shale sequence underlying the Berea Sandstone. Three control wells selected for sampling during this investigation were developed in the Berea Sandstone. The owner of the well on Bainbridge Road stated that their well had natural gas for a number of years prior to the December 2007 incident."
If you drill water wells through sediments known to contain naturally occurring natural gas - and these wells are located in a house basement, this is not a safe situation.
Luckily, none of the above has anything to do with fracing.
But then again it could possibly be a case of "Troll Flatulence" (Troll Flatulence is rumored to contain highly flamable concentrations of Methane!) and Trolls are known to hang out in such places as under bridges and in basements; but I am no expert in Troll Flatulence; that is more in the realm of pseudo-science (as practiced by the anti-fracer fraternity).
All IMHO,
JS
-
Permalink Reply by HB on
-
Jack, Jack, Jack....you really MUST stop fling facts about so freely! The Antis have very soft heads and you are no doubt causing considerable damage!
-
-
-
Jack : the following are the conclusions of ODNR's report. The incident had NOTHING to do with naturally occurring gas in the potable ground water or well water of the residents.
Conclusions about the Cause of the Gas Invasion of the Aquifers
The DMRM has determined that accumulation and confinement of deep, high-pressure gas in the surface-production casing annulus of the English No.1 Well, between November 13 and December 15, resulted in over-pressurization of the annulus. This over-pressurized condition resulted in invasion of natural gas from the annulus of the well into natural fractures in the bedrock below the base of the cemented surface casing. This gas migrated vertically through fractures into the overlying aquifers and discharged through local water wells. Three successive events in the drilling and completion of the English No.1 Well are believed to be the primary contributing factors that led to the gas invasion of the shallow aquifers and subsequent explosion in the house on English Drive.
The first contributing factor was inadequate cementing of the production casing prior to remedial cementing on December 15. The industry standard for cementing production casing calls for sufficient cement to fill the annulus between the well bore and the casing 600-800 feet above the “Clinton”. At this height, the “Newburg” zone, which can be gas and/or brine bearing, is effectively sealed from the well bore and presents no further problem in completing the well. 175 sacks of Unitropic cement was ordered and run for the primary cement job for the English No.1. Theoretically, this amount should have provided more than enough fill up to cover and seal the “Newburg” at 3350 feet. However, the bond log run on November 1 indicates the top of cement was only at 3640 feet, the level of the “Packer Shell” and approximately 300 feet below the “Newburg”. It appears from the record that the “Packer Shell” in the English No.1 Well is naturally fractured to the extent that it “thieved” most of the cement that was pumped into the well. The result was that the borehole was exposed to high pressure gas from the “Newburg” and any other deep source of gas.
The second contributing factor was the decision to proceed with stimulating the well without addressing the issue of the minimal cement behind the production casing. Hydraulic fracture stimulation normally involves injecting fluids and sand into the oil and gas reservoir to enhance the flow of hydrocarbons to the well bore. When a well is properly constructed, the hydraulic fracture is confined between the permitted reservoir formation and the production casing. The abnormal circulation that was observed during the stimulation of the English No.1
REPORT ON THE BAINBRIDGE INVESTIGATION PAGE 45well indicates that the frac communicated directly with the well bore and was not confined within the “Clinton” reservoir. This communication could also have provided a conduit for “Clinton” gas to enter the annulus of the well.
While the out-of-zone hydraulic fracturing operation may have provided an avenue for “Clinton” gas to migrate up the surface-production casing annulus, the DMRM has concluded that it is highly unlikely that fluids used in the hydraulic fracturing process, or flow back fluids, escaped from the borehole or entered into local aquifers.
Based upon consideration of all records and available information, the DMRM has determined that the valves on the surface production casing annulus remained open before, during, and after the hydraulic fracturing operation in accordance with standard industry practice. Producers Services Corp. and OVESC appropriately terminated the hydraulic fracturing operation as soon as fluids circulated to surface. Producers Services immediately reduced the pump rate and pressure, completed the sand flush, and shut the fracturing operation down. According to eyewitness accounts and job records, fluid circulation rates responded to pump rates, and when the pump shut down, annular flow stopped as soon as hydraulic equilibrium was attained, as expected.
Finally, the third and most critical contributing factor leading to the incident was the 31 day period after the fracturing stimulation of the Clinton formation during which the annular space between the surface and production casings was mostly shut in. This confined the deep, high-pressure gas from “Newburg” and/or “Clinton” within this restricted space. Readings taken and reported by OVESC during this shut in period were consistently 320 psi or greater. Typically, shallow shale gas does not register more than 30-60 psi on the annulus and can be closed in or vented without problem. Pressures of the order that were observed would indicate a deeper source of the gas present in the annulus. This was not recognized by OVESC personnel who opened the valve to blow off the pressure but continued to close the annulus valve when not on site. As pressure on the annulus built up, the gas migrated laterally and vertically through natural fractures in the surrounding bedrock. This over-pressurized gas infiltrated the local aquifers, discharged through local water wells, allowing gas to enter some area homes in varying concentrations, and resulting in the explosion at one home.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Moe on
-
ji,
You left out an important part of the report that you posted excerpts from, perhaps conveniently for you but not for readers:
Corrective Action
The DMRM evaluated OVESC’s remedial cement job at the English No.1Well by reviewing annular pressure measurements and well construction records including four cement bond logs. Based upon this evaluation, the DMRM concluded that:
1. Inadequate primary cementing of the production casing has been remedied by the subsequent squeeze cementing operations;
2. The deep high-pressure gas zones that were the source of over-pressurization of the aquifers have been isolated and sealed from the well bore through the squeeze cementing procedures;
3. The confinement of annular gas, which caused the build up of pressure, has been eliminated.
Remedial cementing operations completed by OVESC in mid-December, 2007 have effectively isolated and sealed deep, high-pressure gas bearing zones. As a result, natural gas from deep formations can no longer migrate up the surface-production casing annulus of the English No.1
Well and migrate into local aquifers. The “Clinton” sandstone and “Newburg” are effectively sealed behind cemented production casing.
Since 1984, when the DMRM established a ground water investigation program, this is the first documented incident where natural gas invaded ground water aquifers as a result of a deficient primary cement job on the production casing. During this same period of time, over 22,000 “Clinton” wells, and nearly 30,000 oil and gas wells have been completed in Ohio.
Your stubborn efforts to use data and reports out of context is both amazing and humorous - it isn't even worthy of anger.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on
-
Source: http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blog...
“What the Frack… Obama’s EPA Backpedals on Texas Fracking Contamination Lawsuit
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on March 30, 2012
The Environmental Protection Agency’s lawsuit against Range Resources Corp, which claimed that the company had polluted water wells in rural Texas as a result of fracking, has been dropped.
Still waiting for Obama’s power-grabbing EPA to backpedal on being permitted to fine U.S. companies for not using nonexistent fuels (that’s correct, nonexistent) and its stunning killing of new coal-fired power plants, which because of its newly proposed greenhouse emission standards, will plunge a huge stake into the heart of the coal industry. And will cast thousands more hard-working Americans into the hell hole of unemployment and limit creation of electrical power across the nation.
One EPA back-pedaling action at a time, however.The Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its claim that an energy company contaminated drinking water in Texas, the third time in recent months that the agency has backtracked on high-profile local allegations linking natural-gas drilling and water pollution.
On Friday, the agency told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative order that alleged Range Resources Corp. had polluted water wells in a rural Texas county west of Fort Worth. Under an agreement filed in U.S. court in Dallas, the EPA will also drop the lawsuit it filed in January 2011 against Range, and Range will end its appeal of the administrative order.
In addition to dropping the case in Texas, the EPA has agreed to substantial retesting of water in Wyoming after its methods were questioned. And in Pennsylvania, it has angered state officials by conducting its own analysis of well water—only to confirm the state’s finding that water once tainted by gas was safe.
Taken together, some experts say, these misfires could hurt the agency’s credibility at a time when federal and state regulators seek ways to ensure that natural-gas drilling is done safely.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency agreed to end a lawsuit that would’ve forced Range Resources Corp. (RRC) (RRC) to fix natural-gas wells the government said were contaminating water in Parker County, Texas.
The agency withdrew an administrative order yesterday and joined with Range seeking dismissal of the case in a filing today in federal court in Dallas. The government wants to “shift the agency’s focus in this particular case away from litigation” and instead test water wells in the area, the agency said in a statement.
EPA ordered Range to fix leaks in the area in 2010, saying state regulators at the Texas Railroad Commission weren’t acting fast enough after residents complained of gas in their water wells. Range, based in Fort Worth, Texas, said gas was already present in local water and its operations weren’t the cause.
Range uses hydraulic fracturing in Texas’s Barnett Shale, shooting water, chemicals and sand underground to get oil and gas from dense rock formations. Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, say the technique known as fracking can contaminate local water supplies.
The EPA said in 2010 that the wells were fractured; it didn’t say whether fracking caused the gas leaks.
“It is very important for people who live in that community to trust that their environment, safety and health is protected,” Matt Pitzarella, a Range spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “We believe this withdrawal will help.””Source: http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/
“News from the Oil Patch
April 3, 2012,
EPA Dismisses Suit Against Range
The Environmental Protection Agency has thrown in the towel. It dismissed its suit against Range Resources that sought to enforce its emergency order claiming that Range was responsible for contamination of water wells in Parker County.
I have previously written about this controversy. See my previous posts here and here and here and here and here. The EPA alleged that the water well belonging to the Lipskys had been contaminated with methane by Range's fracing of wells in the area. Range called a hearing at the Railroad Commission and invited the EPA and the Lipskys to attend, but they declined. The RRC found that Range's well was not the cause of the water well contamination; it concluded that the methane was naturally occurring and was caused when the water well was drilled too deep, into a shallow gas formation. Range fought the EPA's allegations vigorously. So far, the EPA has been unable to link any groundwater contamination to hydraulic fracturing.
The Lipskys also filed a civil suit against Range seeking damages -- a big mistake. Range got the Lipsky's case dismissed, on the ground that the RRC had already determined that Range was not at fault. Range filed a counterclaim against the Lipskys for defamation and to recover the costs of its litigation, and also filed a cross claim against the Lipskys' expert Alisha Rich, claiming that she conspired with the Lipskys to produce false evidence in the case. Those claims remain pending.”
My Comments: Now Range are suing the anti-fracing Lipskys for defamation - asking 4.2 million dollars!
Source: http://www.planning.org/news/daily/story.htm?story_id=170939646
“EPA drops action against Range Resources over Parker County water wells
Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Texas), 2012-03-31
By Barry Shlachter, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas
March 31--In an about-face, the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday withdrew its 15-month-old emergency order against Range Resources that had blamed the Fort Worth-based drilling company for methane contamination in water wells and demanded that it supply safe drinking water to two Parker County homes.
"Range is very pleased to see that the EPA's order in Parker County has been withdrawn," Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said. "It's important for people to know that their environment, health and safety is protected, and hopefully this provides them with that comfort."
The company said the withdrawal could help its $4.2 million defamation lawsuit against Steve and Shyla Lipsky, residents of Parker County's Lake Country Acres subdivision.
Range lodged its counterclaim against the Lipskys after the couple filed a $6.5 million lawsuit, alleging that Range's hydraulic fracturing contaminated their drinking water. But a state district judge dismissed the Lipskys' suit in January, later saying that Steve Lipsky and his environmental consultant had created a "deceptive video" of a methane-spewing water well. Lipsky's attorney, Allen Stewart, did not respond to a request for comment Friday.
The EPA did not make clear whether its technical staff had reversed its views on the cause of methane contamination, which prompted the Dec. 7, 2010, emergency order.
"Resolving the lawsuits with Range allows EPA to shift the agency's focus in this particular case away from litigation and toward a joint effort on the science and safety of energy extraction," said Jennah Durant, a Dallas-based EPA spokeswoman. "EPA and Range will share scientific data and conduct further well monitoring in the area, and Range will also provide useful information and access to EPA in support of EPA's scientific inquiry into the potential impacts of energy extraction on drinking water."
After withdrawing the order, the EPA released a letter from Range's attorney, John A. Riley, saying that the company, in connection with the agency's move, committed to sample water at 20 private wells in southern Parker County on a quarterly basis for a year.
With the landowners' approval, it will test for such dissolved gases as carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen and methane, as well as such organic substances as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene, Riley said.
Range anticipates starting the tests within 30 days. Pitzarella, the company spokesman, said the agreement is not a quid pro quo deal.
"The additional water testing is something that Range had agreed to do almost year ago," he said. "We would continue as long as necessary within reason [to] test water supplies around that vicinity to provide people with peace of mind that the water was safe. That was something we promised and pledged to the [Texas] Railroad Commission, that we promised and pledged to the residents and now that's something we told the EPA. "Withdrawal of the emergency order speaks for itself."
The Lipskys' well will be among those sampled, he added.
Since the order was issued, Range has insisted that its drilling activities did not cause any contamination of drinking water.
"Our position on this matter has been very consistent," Pitzarella said Friday. "This is an issue of Mother Nature -- naturally-occurring methane not at unsafe levels. It's very manageable."
The EPA's order was opposed by the Railroad Commission, which regulates drilling activity in the state. The commission called the EPA's order "unprecedented" and in March 2011 found that Range was not responsible for the contamination.
"By dropping their court case and enforcement actions, EPA now acknowledges what we at the Railroad Commission have known for more than a year: Range Resources' Parker County gas wells did not contaminate groundwater," commission Chairman Barry Smitherman said in a statement. "This announcement is a vindication of the science-based processes at the Railroad Commission. It is good to see EPA reconsidering their tactics after being rebuked."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a critic of the agency, also weighed in.
"Yet again, EPA has to retreat after an initial overreach," said Matt Letourneau, media director. "The EPA has withdrawn an order after it became clear that they had acted without fully comprehending the details and science behind the case. This represents at least the third case where EPA rushed to judgment against unconventional oil and natural gas development only to find the scientific facts didn't support its rhetoric."
Barry Shlachter, 817-390-7718
Twitter: @startelegram”My Comments: Be careful anti-fracers, the Oil & Gas Companies are filing Anti-Defamation Lawsuits!
When you spew your vile bile, you had better be able to back up your charges!
-
-
It's about time that an exploration company fires back with a lawsuit against the people, and their attorneys, who are looking for some way to get something for nothing, i.e. some trumped up allegation that they try to support with voodoo from some idiot who proclaims to be an expert but who is really just an uniformed anti- who doesn't get it.
Maybe this will deter more of the anti-fracers from making their unsubstantiated and ill-conceived claims. But wait...a sensible anti-fracer?. Now that is truly an oxymoron!
-
-
somehow i knew that was coming.
-
-
"You left out an important part of the report that you posted excerpts from, perhaps conveniently for you but not for readers:"
"Your stubborn efforts to use data and reports out of context is both amazing and humorous - it isn't even worthy of anger."
I posted the link for the entire ODNR Bainbridge Report so ALL could read the COMPLETE report. That's where you got your info on the corrective action isn't it?. The specific part I copied was in response to a certain comment made about the cause of the incident that was in the conclusions not in the corrective actions. I absolutely made no attempt to exclude the corrective actions taken or any other part of the report. If I did I would not have given the link for the whole report. Give me a break. What a weak and pathetic attempt to discredit someone.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
