EPA Again Says Dimock Tests Show No Contamination

Here is the latest on Dimock and the EPA:

http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/further-review-of-the-data-in-dimock-s...

Views: 2120

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ji on March 19, 2012 at 3:01pm

You forgot to include the rest of the article:  

... there are a large number of private water wells throughout the northern tier of the state with LOW levels of naturally occurring methane.

Prior to this year, there were issues involving the migration of methane into water wells as a result of gas drilling operations.

Since the state implemented more stringent gas well casing standards on Feb. 5, the number of incidences involving drilling-related gas migration has dropped significantly, he said.

"To date, they haven't found any Marcellus methane gas in ground water or drinking water wells," Murphy said. "It's the gas from the upper zones that has found it way into (ground water or drinking water wells) due to poor well casing and cementing."

Jim ShoosPermalink Reply by Jim Shoos on March 19, 2012 at 3:13pm

You're a real piece of work JI... they never found any Marcellus gas in water wells to begin with...NEVER.  You seem to fail the grasp the concept that methane occurs in shallow formations.  The isotope signature is vastly different from that of Marcellus gas.  Never, I repeat NEVER has Marcellus gas/methane ever shown to have appeared in anybody's water wells.  Shallow methane is everywhere...it is common...I repeat COMMON in a significant number of water wells prior to any drilling activity occurring. 

Permalink Reply by ji on March 19, 2012 at 4:04pm

I don't see a reply button for Mr. Shoos comments so I am including a response to his comment here:


To date, they haven't found any Marcellus methane gas in ground water or drinking water wells," Murphy said. "It's the gas from the upper zones that has found it way into (ground water or drinking water wells) due to poor well casing and cementing."

The upper zone gas they are referencing above in the article is gas originating  from oil and gas formations above the Marcellus.  In Ohio it could be the Newburgh, Clinton, or several other formations.  This is thermogenic gas. These upper formations are sometimes produced with vertical wells. These "upper zones" they are talking about are what is leaking into ground water thru poor well casing and cementing; not biogenic gas that you say is "shallow methane found everywhere". Big difference. 

Biogenic gas found in water wells is usually found at much lower concentrations than thermogenic gas. It is stray, high pressure, thermogenic gas that is causing the problems with water wells in the shale development.

Most natural gas was created over time by two mechanisms: biogenic and thermogenic. Biogenic gas is created by methanogenic organisms in marshes, bogs, landfills, and shallow sediments. Deeper in the earth, at greater temperature and pressure, thermogenic gas is created from buried organic material.

Jim ShoosPermalink Reply by Jim Shoos on March 20, 2012 at 4:26am

JI.... You attributed the "thermogenic and biogenic" argument to the wrong guy.  I don't even know what those terms mean. 

The poor casing design argument as being the cause of shallow methane migration is a figment of somebody's imagination and shows a complete lack of knowledge as to what occurs downhole.  The shallow methane gas doesn't move inside the casing and therefore has nothing to do with improper casing.

Permalink Reply by Tom Copley on March 19, 2012 at 11:59pm

Methane is unlikely to be found leaking from the Marcellus or Utica shales. However, everyone admits that there is naturally-occurring natural gas dissolved in ground water used for drinking water wells often in the same areas being drilled. Usually the gas can be merely vented off, or else an aerator system can also help. However, most people use chlorine to disinfect their water, and there can be a chemical reaction between methane and chlorine that causes some negative heath effects. It does not appear to be utterly harmless. If you have methane in your well water, it might be advisable to find a different disinfectant to use besides chlorine--preferably one unreactive with methane.

Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on March 20, 2012 at 11:36am

Great discussion!  The facts about Dimock speak for themselves, as not only Cabot, but also DEP and the EPA have found the Sautner well and others have not been contaminated by natural gas development activity.  Everything else is speculation.

Permalink Reply by kkw on March 22, 2012 at 6:49am

I just found a spring on our farm (inWV) last night that has natural gas bubbling up in it.  Whom do I sue?

Permalink Reply by Tom Copley on March 22, 2012 at 7:11am

any natural gas wells in the area?

Jim ShoosPermalink Reply by Jim Shoos on March 22, 2012 at 7:27am

God

Permalink Reply by Sinclair on March 27, 2012 at 2:51am
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20120325/VIEWPOINTS02/20325031...|topnews|text|Viewpoints

===================================
Dimock water tests show incomplete picture
Written by Tom Wilber
4:05 PM, Mar. 23, 2012

The quality of well water in Dimock, Pa., is the center of national
attention for activists, journalists, regulators, lawyers, policy-
makers and industry officials — all looking for the latest evidence
from government studies that will support their cases for or against
hydraulic fracturing.

Dimock has become one of the most prolific places in the Appalachian
basin for shale gas development, and one of the biggest examples of
its impact on communities. Residents here were categorically
optimistic about the prospects of leasing land to operators in 2007
and 2008. That began to change on Jan. 1, 2009, when a residential
water well exploded soon after drilling began in the area. A resulting
investigation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection found methane had leaked from faulty gas wells into more
than a dozen water supplies. Nearly two years later, as more problems
were uncovered, John Hanger — the state's top environmental official
during the Rendell administration — declared the aquifer that supplies
certain Dimock homes to be permanently damaged. To make things right,
Hanger ordered Cabot Oil & Gas to develop and pay for a pipeline from
Montrose, Pa., to deliver fresh water to the affected residents.

The initiative was defeated after Tom Corbett was elected governor on
a pro-drilling platform. Under Corbett, the DEP declared this year
that Cabot Oil & Gas had met its obligation to compensate landowners
for the pollution and no longer needed to deliver water to residents.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency responded with its own
investigation after reviewing data from previous tests by Cabot and
the DEP that, according to an EPA memo, showed "a number of home wells
in the Dimock area contain hazardous substances, some of which are not
naturally found in the environment." The memo identified drilling
operations as a suspect.

There have been other reports of water pollution in Dimock. In 2010,
testing by Farnham and Associates, an engineering firm that
specializes in commercial wastewater issues, found traces of
hydrocarbon solvents — including ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene —
showing up periodically after heavy rains in the wells of people who
also had methane problems

A preliminary report released by the EPA this month spurred more
controversy. The results of the first 11 of 61 wells sampled showed
traces of some compounds associated with drilling operations,
including sodium, methane and chromium, but none of them at levels
that presented health risks. Arsenic was detected in two wells at
concentrations high enough to warrant more investigation "to better
characterize the water quality of these wells," according to Roy
Seneca, EPA Region 3 press officer. Since beginning the investigation
in January, the EPA has collected samples at 61 homes, with results
from the other 50 homes pending.

The results, far from complete, provided enough for the industry to
hold them up as evidence that the water is fine and to justify
reproach aimed at the EPA for butting in.

"We hope that lessons learned from EPA's experience in Dimock will
result in the agency improving cooperation with all stakeholders and
to establish a firmer basis for agency decision-making in the future,"
read a Cabot statement.

Activists, on the other hand, are seeing something altogether
different. Julie Sautner points to her well that, according to DEP
records, was polluted in 2009 and eventually taken off line after a
filtration system set up by Cabot began to malfuncti
Permalink Reply by Thomas J Shepstone on March 27, 2012 at 4:36am

The evidence the water is safe has been there all along, long before the EPA came to town.  See http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/epa-overrules-u-s-constitution-accordi....

Also, for the record, the water line proposal was dropped before Corbett took office by the Rendell administration because it was wildly unpopular locally.  See http://eidmarcellus.org/blog/dimock-the-full-story/5562/

Permalink Reply by Tom Copley on March 27, 2012 at 8:30am

Most people who do not live on top of hydrocarbon deposits are unaware of methane migration. It suggests the need to test and retest water at different times to ascertain whether or not there is methane in well water. Methane can be moved around by changes in the barometric pressure or contrasting concentrations of methane. It will flow from areas of high concentration to low such as in a well or basement.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service