Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on March 20, 2016 at 8:00am

While what you posted is true, the bad news is that the press will not report it accurately and the people will only read the headlines. The media will spin it to the left's POV. They might print some details near the end of the article, knowing full well few people read entire articles. Broadcast media will only give the headlines, comedians where too many people get their news will have a field day, and the Left's use of social media will spread the untruths far and wide.

And even if Cabot wins on appeal, as they should, it will be spun as a crooked system protecting big oil. There will be outrage that the courts overturned a jury verdict. In spite of all evidence and all facts, this is a huge loss for the industry.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry D on March 20, 2016 at 10:02am

Jim

Couldn't agree more.

Another post here today is of such an article as you describe.

But I can't give up or give in. That's why I post here on this site.

There are so many people who only read the site, I want them to get the truth, so I post the truth.

Keep the faith, the truth will out.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on March 21, 2016 at 1:36am

A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

It's important to remember Dimock is not about fracking or water well contamination or anything akin.  Dimock is about saving the earth from (albeit non-existent) man-caused global warming.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Heckbert on March 25, 2016 at 6:30am

Although the judge forbade the display in court of the Dimock tapwater (for some reason), this is what it looked like:

[photo from 2013]

The jury concluded that Cabot Oil & Gas had contaminated the well water.

The above picture comes from a news source other than energyindepth: https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2016/02/23/dimock-resident...

It's good to get your news from more than one source, and from sources that don't have a conflict of interest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry D on March 25, 2016 at 7:05am

Hey Chicken Little,

The main reason the judge threw out the claims of responsibility for pollution of the water wells is that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE! That info comes from the court record, not some environmental whacko, fractivist website. Lack of conflict of interest indeed, they're biased. State Impact receives funding from The Park Foundation a well known anti shale development organization.

The attorney for the plaintiffs admitted that they didn't have any evidence and the case wasn't about polluted water.

Know why the Judge wouldn't allow the picture?

First - no proof that it is of water from the well of a plaintiff. It's just a picture, the water could have come from anywhere.

Second - The plaintiffs did not provide any evidence that their water wells were compromised by the activity of Cabot. So the picture is irrelevant.

In fact the facts show that the condition of the water from the plaintiffs wells was in this condition prior to activity of Cabot. Studies by the EPA, DEP and other reputable organizations found that the water was like this prior to oil and gas activity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on March 29, 2016 at 9:33am

Question number 2 on the Jury Verdict sheet is this: (Can't figure out how to copy or attach, but all the jurors answered "yes")

Question 2
Have the Plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that in the drilling or completion of the Gesford Wells Cabot negligently
created a private nuisance which significantly harmed any of the
Plaintiffs in their use and enjoyment of the property by contaminating
the water well(s) on the Ely Property?
Answer ''Yes" or "No" as to each of the Plaintiffs below.

• ▶ Reply