Seismic testing in Hookstown... HELP ?

We had a man  come to our farm  today and wanted us to sign papers to let them do Seismic testing on our farm.  The mans name was Mike Allstead from SEITEL, out of Monaca, PA. He offered us $5.00 per acre on our 76 acre farm. They want to dig 40 3 inch round holes , 30 ft. deep, put blasting powder in the holes . ( My Husband talked to the man, I was not here)  He told the man he needs to talk with me. I am to call him and set up a time after the Holidays to sign the papers. The man needs to come back and draw where the buildings and ponds are, on our property.  Has anyone else been aproached by this  company ? ANY information would be appreciated ! Not sure what to do ? Confused..... Many Thanks in advance for your information !

Views: 9342

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bill F. on January 4, 2013 at 3:16pm
Permalink Reply by Bill F. on January 4, 2013 at 3:19pm

and a little more for those that have smart remarks about the dust   http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Fracking-Ex...

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 5, 2013 at 7:14am

Thanks for the daylight post, Bill that one appears to be dust. Though I have seen much denser plumes from construction sites.  Less than two minutes of video does not show that the plume goes on all day or all week.  You need air monitoring data to show that.  However my original post did state that I believed the nightime cloud to be condensation as I have seen that behavior before.  I never said that there was no possibility it was dust.  However I am not backtracking, and my opinion has not changed, I do not see sufficient evidence that that particular video shows dust.  I also never called you or thought you were an idiot.  You say you were on the site, you had the ability to see things beyond what the camera showed that the video does not communicate. 

I've read the NIOSH reports and they are directed at dust concentrations for workers in the breathing zone near the mixing and storage bins and it assumes a continuous exposure.  Their results do not imply hazardous conditions exist at significant distances downwind, only air monitoring can demonstrate this potential hazard exists.  Your video documentation is useful and should help you look into getting a grant that could fund some independent air monitoring.  This should be sufficient data to get an agency to move on the regulation you are seeking. 

I did notice that the frac operator's equipment was not familiar to  me.  The big national companies I am most familiar with do have water spray and closed equipment to control dust emissions.  Not on all their sites, but fleets are slowly being upgraded.  Smaller local operators are more likely to use the less expensive older equipment. 

Permalink Reply by Bill F. on January 5, 2013 at 7:30am

@ Steven ...well next time they frack here I will be trying to set up summa canisters for lab testing .See there are ways to prove this and I will be getting it done ASAP....I have watched silica sand dust from sites for hour on hour for days so I know this is an issue of concern .Why does this industry deny this is a problem when they could be addressing it and complying with public outcry ?

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 5, 2013 at 9:00am

The canisters should give you an idea of VOC emissions.  I think the EPA has some guidance documents that you may find useful for setting up your sampling sites.  Following their protocols will make your data more defensible.  If you are more interested in the particulate emissions, other air sampling devices may be more appropriate.  I've only had peripheral experience with air monitoring in my career, but my reading of the Summa canister information, doesn't seem to indicate it is a type that allows for particle analysis.  Perhaps if it is operated in conjunction with some sort of prefilter and you have the ability to weigh and dissect the filter to establish the particle size range and time weighted concentration.  I've mostly seen small cabinet sized devices for monitoring airborne particles.  They have a vacuum system for capturing the particles on filters.  Again it is a suggestion for what it is worth, I'm outside my expertise comfort zome on these suggestions.

On the subject of industry denial, there is actually a broad spectrum of views within industry on what constitutes problems and their degree of severity.  Remember that any engineered solution is an added cost and will receive resistance.  Most of the folks I have worked with over the years, albeit not in the area here, do not have a desire to recklessly endanger people.  That is not to say that corners are not sometimes bulldozed.  If there are legitimate violations, employees and companies should be called to account.  My personal experience for what it's worth has been years in dusty mines, wellsites, and even a bit of plutonium.  So far my doctor and I believe I'm just fine.  Perhaps I'm just one of the lucky ones.  Good luck with your sampling, I look forward to seeing your data. 

Permalink Reply by Bill F. on January 5, 2013 at 1:26pm

@ Steven ...I realize no one on the job intentionally tries to hurt anyone ,but there are issues and I feel if they are corrected (at the top ) it would be beneficial for all (industry and the public ) thanks for the reply.Sorry to be a pain in the you know what ,but just trying get protection that I believe should be in place .When I was working  part of my job in industry was to improve processes that makes me see a lot of issues .

Permalink Reply by Bill F. on January 4, 2013 at 3:11pm

Here's another video ( not taken by me ) are you going to tell me this is water vapor too ??    Come on I can post plenty of articles on the hazards of fracking sand dust if you want proof this is dust ,but I believe you know I am right .....   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd9gPMpKk5w    see the hoppers !!!

Permalink Reply by Bill F. on January 4, 2013 at 3:37pm

Ha Ha what a joke ......seems every time someone brings out anti drilling matter it's anecdotal .This is a new word you gassers have added to your vocabulary !! Keep the delusion going .It's comes out more everyday !

Permalink Reply by Bill F. on January 5, 2013 at 1:38pm

@ Fang ....I am working on more scientific approaches to this .It 's not that easy when you are working against big business and the state .I feel the latter should be doing more of the study ,but they fail to keep up with the advancement of the process so ( as told by the head of NC DEP ) volunteers are welcome .I don't really like fighting with you guys here just trying to get improvements in essential issues .These issues only benefit all in the long run .The only reason I see that allows OSHA not to make regulations mandatory is the red tape to implement such regulations .I don't believe they (OSHA ) want to allow anyone to be subjected to harmful conditions anywhere .

Permalink Reply by 0llbnp780fs53 on January 4, 2013 at 3:41pm

Actually, the new video posted is a daytime video of what is being called "silica sand clouds".  It would be hard to justify calling what is shown in the video as engine exhaust.  (Have you looked at it?)

The switchboard and aflcio links both point back to a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently released information that identifies silica exposure as a significant risk to workers on O&G sites and references high OSHA reported death rates (note not explicitly silica related) among O&G workers (from the AFLCIO link):

...workers in the oil and gas extraction industries face high rates of fatal occupational injuries. Between 2003 and 2009, there were 27.5 deaths per 100,000 workers, a rate more than seven times higher than the fatality rate for all U.S. workers. 

OSHA has always reported death rates by industry and their numbers are generally accepted for use in statistics and studies.  So, I would not call them anecdotal.

I haven't pulled down the study related to silica, but I'm guessing that their report/study is also a bit more than anecdotal.

Permalink Reply by Steven A Joliat on January 5, 2013 at 7:33am

The NIOSH report while an important document is concerned with workers within high concentrations of silica dust, it does not extend its conclusions to dispersed dust at lower concentrations downwind. 

Much of the reported fatality rate data is frequently not categorized by type within industries.  There is a particularly high component of traffic fatalities accumulated within many reports, that while a safety issue in itself, gives a distorted view of the true fatality rates for the at wellsite operations.  Building the comparison across all US workers is also inappropriate.  Sitting at a desk, or working at a sales counter is not an appropriate comparison.  The traditional comparison between the construction, mining, agriculture and logging industries would seem to be more appropriate due to similarities in working environment and tasks. 

Permalink Reply by WVU78 on January 5, 2013 at 12:28am

I WAS a supervisor of oil and gas inspectors for PADEP, and you are wrong that this industry is not regulated! Is your acquaintance an oil and gas inspector? A water quality specialist? Working for what bureau?  Oil and gas, Air, Waste?  I have been there and have been on many a drilling site, frac job, cementing, flowback, production, plugging. I have been there and I can tell you that the problem is that you don't like the fact that there is change in Bradford County.  I can't help that, but there is no health or contamination affecting you.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service