Big Dumper caught RED HANDED . Stay clear of this bunch !
Check this one out . This is one of the people that dumped on a Monroe county Farm .
WOW !!!!!
Guilty plea in Clean Water Act case
February 14, 2013
A New Matamoras man has pleaded guilty to a violation of the Clean Water Act by allowing oil and gas well wastewater to flow into a tributary of the Little Muskingum River three years ago.
Robert D. Armstrong, 54, also entered a guilty plea on behalf of his company, RCA Oil and Gas LLC, which was charged with the same offense, according to a news release from U.S. Attorney Carter M. Stewart with the Southern District Court of Ohio.
Armstrong entered the guilty pleas Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson, who had not set a sentencing date as of Wednesday afternoon.
But, according to court documents from Tuesday's hearing, joint sentencing recommendations agreed to by both parties in the case include 48 hours of imprisonment, followed by eight months of home confinement, with work release time, for Armstrong.
Also recommended is 12 months of supervised release during which Armstrong would complete 288 hours of community service.
He would also agree to arrange for publication of a quarter-page ad in an oil and gas industry magazine, listing the requirements for proper disposal of brine waste and the consequences for failing to do so.
The amount of any fine would be determined by the court.
The maximum sentence that Armstrong could face is three years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, and a year of supervised release.
Armstrong initially pleaded not guilty to the offense when first indicted on Nov. 29, 2012.
The pollution violation took place in June 2010 at an RCA well off Monroe County 19, about five miles north of New Matamoras in Benton Township.
Armstrong had built a reservoir with an earthen wall to hold water he intended to use in the fracking process of a nearby well.
The reservoir contained approximately 2.2 million gallons of fresh water. But Armstrong had added thousands of gallons of brine or wastewater from the fracking process at two other oil and gas wells to the reservoir.
As a result of the addition, all of the liquid in the reservoir was classified as oil field wastewater.
On June 19, 2010, Armstrong used a backhoe to breach a wall of the reservoir, releasing the wastewater into Rockcamp Run. The reservoir contained about 800,000 gallons of wastewater at the time, most of which entered Rockcamp Run.
Analysis of wastewater from the reservoir showed significant concentrations of barium and sodium.
Ingesting drinking water containing higher levels of barium than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water guidelines of 20 milligrams per liter can cause gastrointestinal disturbances and muscle weakness with short-term exposure and kidney damage over a longer period of time.
Views: 3306
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on -
"The reservoir contained approximately 2.2 million gallons of fresh water. But Armstrong had added thousands of gallons of brine or wastewater from the fracking process at two other oil and gas wells to the reservoir."
not alot of info there. only the amount of freshwater in the pond.
it says" thousands"of gallons of brine, but how many thousands was it?
if there were 2 thousand gallons of brine put in with the 2.2 million of freshwater, there would be less than 1/10% of brine. the brine itself likely isnt a very high concentration of barium or salt either, so the total concentration of barium and salt is likely in the hundredths of a percent.
sounds like this guy got hung out to dry as an example on a technicality. i've seen that happen before.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by John OBrien, landowner advocate on
-
WJ,
Are you completely NUTS? I don't give a damn if it was one gallon, I say hang the SOB. I live on the Little Muskingum and I have fished in it all my life. Hung out to dry my arse! How about we send him to your backyard and dump a load, then we will see how you feel.
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
i just typed a response and it disappeared.
whats up with that?
im tired john, i'll retype it tomorrow.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by time will tell on
-
wyalusing , you must work in the industry . This is not the first time for this crum .
I'f I were you I would not down size this one .
Barium wasn't the only thing found , just printed .
You sound like one of those who likes to down size anything connected to a
release of production fluid .This guy breech's a dyke on purpose and you stick
up for him .
Really ?
This wasn't an accident .
John you are right . Let see wyalusing drink the pretty Barium .
-
-
WY , don't forget your warm cup of Barium PM . Nightie Night .
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on
-
Sounds like he was a small operator trying to save a little money by dumping some frac fluid from fracs on a couple shallow vertical wells.
The good news is that it likely was not much (when diluted).
The really good news is HE GOT CAUGHT!
No excuses, if it was a gallon, it was a gallon too much.
He should get some jail time; the lower bunk ... the one beneath Big Bubba (the guy wearing eyeliner and a cute pair of pink pumps).
He should get a truly painful fine.
His community service should involve some appropriate community service; I would suggest that it involve Port-a-Potties.
People who try to sneak a few "short cuts" past the people disserve the wrath of the people.
People who try to sneak a few "short cuts" past the people are a anathema to those who behave in a responsible manner.
All IMHO,
JS
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
first and foremost, this is a lousy piece of journalism.
incomplete facts which seems to be designed to incite an emotional reaction. apparently, it has done just that.
in my area here in nepa, i've seen this many times in the past couple of years. it sells newspapers.
thats how dimock, pa became famous. if you were to read the news accounts of dimock, you could reach a conclusion that that sleepy little town was an uninhabitable wasteland. in fact it is little changed since the arrival of the gas industry.
in a case in southern bradford county, following an accidental discharge of approximately 10,000 gallons of frac fluid while frac'ing the atgas well, the net result to the environment was literally 3 dead tadpoles and 2 dead frogs. they died when the rush of water washed them out of a nearby pond. the water continued on into a trout stream just downslope. guys were fishing at the time. they caught their fish and went about their lives oblivious to the event. where that stream empties into the susquehanna dep monitored the water quality and was unable to detect...anything unusual. there was massive media coverage of that spill. updates every hour or so, until the story faded and there was basically no story. no damage...to anything, just some news that turned out to be nothing.
i see the inevitable, "you must be in the industry", accusations have started. i am not. what i am is a landowner who prefers to look at these things objectively. i'm old, i've had my share of wasted emotions over the years. unwarranted fears, which turned out to be for naught.
when i hear someone say "i dont care if it was only a gallon", it sounds to me like they are saying, "dont confuse me with the facts, i know what i want to be afraid of".
if you say that just one gallon is too much, how about a pint? how about a teaspoon? a drop? saying that any amount is too much without understand the effects is just silly. and in reality, you dont even know what exactly was in that pond from that article.
the article say that it was brine...or wastewater from the frac'ing process. which was it, or was it both? did the reporter even know? did he bother to find out?
as far as punishment, i am not suggesting that this guy should get off scott free. he got caught breaking a law presumably. there is an appropriate punishment i'm sure, but i am not sure that incarceration is appropriate without knowing his intent and the extent of the damage he has caused.
you want me to drink barium? sure. i drink it every day, it's in my wellwater. you probably drink it too too.
ever had a colonoscopy? you drank barium...lots of it.
and then...if we want to be so sanctimonious about this guy being punished for breaking a law, lets not be hypocritical. i hope you guys turn yourselves in for coasting through a stop sign or driving 2 mph over the speed limit. i dont care if it is "just 2 mph over the limit", you broke the law.
i prefer to keep it real. i know that some folks thrive on emotional events, they get your blood pressure up, release adrenaline, it's kindof an emotional high. but you eventually come down when the event fades into the past with all of the other sensational news of yesterday.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on
-
RE: "first and foremost, this is a lousy piece of journalism."
Sadly, this sort of pandering to the sensational has become the standard.
RE: "when i hear someone say "i dont care if it was only a gallon", it sounds to me like they are saying, "dont confuse me with the facts, i know what i want to be afraid of"."
This was not an accidental discharge, this was a willful act; that difference is more than one of semantics.
Accidents can (and do) happen, we can take steps to limit the opportunity for accidents to occur - but we cannot eliminate the possibility.
Willful acts can essentially be prevented; if not prevented, vigorously discouraged to the point at which they do not occur.
The (highly preventable) willful act of illegal discharge of fluids is a slap in the face of the community. The nature of that crime, in my opinion, extends beyond possible injuries to the environment.
The knowledge that the sensationalism of the media and looney toon opposition to the industry means that there should be especial diligence in punishing; as the crime is amplified by the reality that the true damage goes beyond the mere physical damage to the environment. Perceptions can create their own reality. The true damage is in the manner in which it affects the perceptions of the (voting) public; changing those perceptions in a manner that can (in turn) result in actions that causes another damage that exceeds the physical crime that altered those perceptions.
RE: "i see the inevitable, "you must be in the industry", accusations have started."
I appreciate that you were not in the industry.
I am someone who once was "in the industry"; and, for that reason I have a different perspective, I hold people in the industry to an exceptionally high standard. I expect them to do things right, and in the right manner; when they woefully and willfully fail, you might note that I am rather unforgiving. As one who once was "in the industry", I can be their harshest critic (when appropriate).
I believe that the industry should take every possible step to police itself (as it is in their best interests to do so). When self policing does not work, then the elected authorities need to vigorously step forward. The punishment for some crimes should be based on a scale for which punishment is directly proportionate to the extent.
The punishment for some crimes should be based on how such behavior damages the norms of society (with less emphasis on the physical extent of the crime).
All IMHO,
JS
-
Permalink Reply by p umpjack on
-
shady or poor or slanted article aside
plead guilty= found guilty just gives the fracktivists traction no one should condone this action
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
Reply by Jack Straw
"This was not an accidental discharge, this was a willful act; that difference is more than one of semantics."
and you got that from where jack? what i read is that, "On June 19, 2010, Armstrong used a backhoe to breach a wall of the reservoir"
was it an intentional act designed to circumvent the regulatory process? or was it an accident?
there are lots of water impoundments near me. on occasion they need to be repaired due to erosion of the berms from heavy rains. it could very well have been that he was working on such a situation when the berm was breached. i dont know and i cannot tell for sure from what was printed in the article.
"I am someone who once was "in the industry"; and, for that reason I have a different perspective, I hold people in the industry to an exceptionally high standard."
why?
shouldnt we all be held to the same standards of accountability? should landowners get a pass for same or similar situations?
i am reminded of the s&e work that's done on wellpads to control runoff during heavy rains which contain silt. failure to totally eliminate this runoff results in heavy fines to the industry, the fines are imposed under clean water laws which are in place to keep waterways free of the affects of sedimentation.
how about agricultural activity? the area of disturbance for an average wellpad is what? about 7-10 acres? how about the millions of acres put to the molboard plow every spring and the resultant sedimentation effects from that activity? if the purpose of clean water laws is really to keep water clean, shouldnt they be going after the most serious sources first? nah, they have a cash cow that expects to be milked. it's all part of their business and all figured into their profit margins.
"When self policing does not work, then the elected authorities need to vigorously step forward."
of course i'm sure that you realize that the "authorities" who handle these matters are not elected at all, but rather appointed. we elect politicians who appoint them. those politicians sometimes run on their records, and in an area where it might be deemed politically expedient to appear to be tough on one industry in particular, politicians will indeed pander to the loudest segment of the population. such is the case in new york state for example, and from what i'm reading, ohio seems to have a very vocal anti drilling movement that appears to be growing. hopefully ohio does not end up like new york though.
something else that i want to touch on regarding effects is, when john mentioned earlier that he fishes in the affected stream, he seemed concerned that this event might affect the safety of the food that he consumes that comes from those waters. does he know whether the fish he eats were ever truly safe? in pennsylvania we have 3 major waterways, the delaware, the susquehanna and the mississippi system which includes the ohio and its' tributaries. in all 3 waterways, there are standing warnings not to consume many of the fish. those rivers already contain toxins which end up in the flesh of those fish that he may eat. and while it could be argued that it's not good to make a bad situation any worse, i think it should still be recognized that our environment has never been as pristine as some would like to make it out to be.
finally:
"The punishment for some crimes should be based on how such behavior damages the norms of society (with less emphasis on the physical extent of the crime)."
well...that may be your opinion, but it is not what our (or any other fair) system of laws is based upon. justice is blind for a reason. the reason is that every attempt must be made to ensure "equal justice under the law" for everyone, regardless of how rich or poor they are, and most importantly regardless how they are perceived by even the majority of others.
otherwise, we may as well go back to impromptu posse's and hangin' 'em from the nearest tree.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on
-
RE: " "On June 19, 2010, Armstrong used a backhoe to breach a wall of the reservoir" was it an intentional act designed to circumvent the regulatory process? or was it an accident?"
"A New Matamoras man has pleaded guilty to a violation of the Clean Water Act by allowing oil and gas well wastewater to flow into a tributary of the Little Muskingum River"
"Robert D. Armstrong, 54, also entered a guilty plea on behalf of his company"
Accidental use of a backhoe, interesting theory .... I didn't know it was loaded capable of breaching the reservoir.
It would seem that two guilty pleas suggested no accident.
RE: "shouldnt we all be held to the same standards of accountability?"
No, there are many situations in which the "standards of accountability" differ according to circumstances. Examples being crimes against children, elder abuse, Good Samaritan laws, etc..
RE: ""The punishment for some crimes should be based on how such behavior damages the norms of society (with less emphasis on the physical extent of the crime)."
well...that may be your opinion, but it is not what our (or any other fair) system of laws is based upon. justice is blind for a reason. the reason is that every attempt must be made to ensure "equal justice under the law" for everyone, regardless of how rich or poor they are, and most importantly regardless how they are perceived by even the majority of others."
It is indeed my strongly held opinion that society should take extraordinary steps to protect privileged groups; those who are most vulnerable. I believe that the punishments for the identical crime perpetrated on two individuals can be different - an obvious example being a physical crime against a child versus the same injuries inflicted upon a healthy adult. The punishment should not simply be a function of the crime, but also the victim.
All IMHO,
JS
Top Content
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
pig dung replied to Theresa Kolk's discussion 'What's going on in your area?? any info???' in the group Tioga County, PApig dung replied to Theresa Kolk's discussion 'What's going on in your area?? any info???' in the group Tioga County, PA
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
