Comment

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 29, 2010 at 11:33am

Thank you, Eberhard, for a realistic statement by someone with experience. It is refreshing to hear firsthand the how's and why's, instead of being pummeled constantly with virtual lies and fantasy.

I find it quite sickening when certain people and organizations accuse the gas companies and their sub contractors of PURPOSELY trying to poison the world. I wonder what these detractors do for a living - do you suppose they could harm someone by accident in THEIR business?

Comment by CJK on April 29, 2010 at 11:13am

Eberhand- you have said it well- the companies are not taking the proper precautions when casing the wells, the integrity of the wells are being compromised and therefore the methane migration and whatever else seeks the path migrates to the water wells.

It is interesting that you speak of how hard you have worked, which I am sure was adequately compensated. If you would work a little harder in worse conditions for no money you might begin to understand what the farmers are facing, so that you can enjoy cheap food, which will provide you energy to continue these pursuits. Which is more vital food or gas? Try living without food.

If at this point in time when the companies are trying to establish good relations with the region and at the same time they are not owning up to their mistakes and causing unnecessary harm to residents, as in the case of Dimock.( The families in Dimock had to wait over a year to get ANY action with regards to their damages.) If this is what we have to look forward to in the industries infancy in the area, what are we to expect 5 years from now?
What is their reluctance for taking responsibility for the damages that they have caused? If it is not such a problem why is the industry avoiding it or covering it up?

Comment by CJK on April 29, 2010 at 10:24am

BTW as you say the increase in the methane in the water might have been caused by the drilling process or the fracking process, and more importantly the methane migration is an indicator for the route that the surface water was and can continually become contaminated through. It did not exist at those levels and extent prior to the drilling/fracking process. Ergo it is caused by the action of drilling/fracking, whether from drilling or fracking it is still the fault of the gas company.

Comment by CJK on April 29, 2010 at 10:05am

You are entitled to your opinion about Engelder and I am entitled to mine.

You are correct about the importance of protection in new leases, but that should not absolve the gas companies from harming ones that do not have protection.

There will be more cases of fault by the gas companies and they will work hard to blame anything or anyone other then themselves for the harm they will cause. They have the money and the ability to do that. So others need to help protect those that did not get all of the safeguards or we will all be losers in the end.

Comment by Eberhard Brendan Carroll on April 29, 2010 at 9:58am

So, brand X E&P company has just drilled a hole in your backyard. The casing is run, it's cemented in place, the rig is off location, the well is prepped for completion. Next comes in the evil frac company. They are going to pump poison into the ground in order to destroy your well water and kill all the fishes in the local stream right?

Come on, does anyone really think that the E&P and service companies are out to destroy the world? Although destroying the world may be appealing to some it's costly to be evil. Anyone in business is in it to make money, bad press and fines detract from profits and shareholder value.

Let's get something straight on fracking. It does not cause methane pockets, contamination of groundwater, etc. Poor zonal isolation does. What do I mean by this? Well, when fracturing a Marcellus well we are generally pumping into the formation at around 8,000' true vertical depth. It's debatable how high a frac grows, but let's say the frac grows 500' in height. Most fresh water aquifers are around 100-1,000'. So the frac and hydrocarbons are separated from the water by about 6,500' of rock. Now if the casing has not been properly cemented in place it is possible for the gas to migrate from 8,000' to surface. To protect the environment we need to focus on good zonal isolation.

As you may have guessed I'm in favor of the RESPONSIBLE development of our resources. I like to turn on the heat in the winter, I like having cheap food, I like to drive to work, I like working on computers, and I like having lights at night. I've worked oilfield, put in the 120 hour weeks outside at -40F to help America get the energy it needs. If you don't want to see our resources developed, don't fuel the demand for energy. Stay home, don't turn on your heat, don't watch TV, don't place posts on forums like these.

Kind Regards,
ebc120

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 29, 2010 at 8:35am

Englander was correct with the statement you quote below. The methane in the water was not from fracing, and was either naturally occurring or pushed through by the drilling process.
He has no agenda. His accomplishments already surpass most others.

Responsibility must be accepted by the gas companies -- IF AND WHEN they are at fault. In this case it is my feeling that Cabot was sloppy with their management of contractors, and they should have just dealt with the issues right away since no pre-drilling water tests were done.

AND, that is why there are thousands of PA and NY landowners who have been spending every day of the last two or more years CHANGING the standard gas lease language to protect everyone.

Comment by CJK on April 29, 2010 at 6:11am

rfs- my point exactly. Dr Engelder has an AGENDA as well, so take what he has to say with the same skepticism.
"One environmentalist recently pointed to alleged cases of contamination in Pennsylvania. But one was a clear case of methane migration from shallow pockets, not from hydraulic fracturing."
The methane migration is resulting from the fracking and now Engelder is tryin to say that arsenic, because it is not used in fracking canot be blamed on the industry, arsenic may not be used in fracking but if it results from the fracking procedure, the procedure can and should be blamd for that, and therefore the industry should be responsible for the cleanup needed for the damage.

I am tired of people trying to avoid responsibility for their actions and for those responsible having the ability to escape unscathed from the consequences they receive. For example the fine that Cabot received from DEP is a drop in the bucket for them, a mere cost of doing business, I find that intolerable and unjust. It certainly does not provide any incentive to correct their procedures.

Comment by daniel cohen on April 29, 2010 at 4:37am

With special thanks to Peacegirl, the following ought to be posted around the sites as we surf:

Report a Spill or Dumping
EPA Eyes On Drilling
Report non-emergency dumping, illegal & suspicious hauling, disposal:
1-877-919-4372
eyesondrilling@epa.gov

To report a spill in NY state:
1-800-457-7362

To report an emergency spill or release of hazardous material to the National Response Center:
1-800-424-8802

Dan

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 29, 2010 at 3:33am

Hmmm those comments sound exactly like Jim Barth from Damascus Citizens!
Now there's someone with NO AGENDA, right?

Comment by CJK on April 29, 2010 at 3:27am

Various Comments, with important statements, from other sources with regards to Dr Engelders article:

I appreciate the fact that you only get 800 words with an op-ed, so
maybe you had more to say, but I found it disingenuous for you to
dismiss the arsenic claim so curtly. No, arsenic isn't used in Fracking:

but it does come up in flowback because it's in the ground. So it's
quite legitimate to site a spike in arsenic levels as potentially caused
by natural gas drilling.

What do you say to that?

And what do you say to the fact that in the many cases where there have
been cause for concern in the state so far, DEP and EPA have never done
a rigorous battery of tests on water to see whether or not industrial
contaminants are there?

Further, how do you respond to Michel Boufadel's research suggesting
that the hydrology of spilled or leaked flowback water is not the same
as freshwater and therefore our monitoring protocols will fail to detect
a contamination for many years?

Lastly, on the issue of natural gas as a greenhouse gas agent: this was
also disingenuous. You and I both know that released methane is a much worse global warming agent than CO2. You and I both know that a lot (and I mean A LOT) of methane escapes over the course of the drilling, treatment and transporting process. A whole lot. When you look at the process as a whole, the case for natural gas as a cleaner alternative really diminishes. It's much too simplistic for you, as a scientist, to dismiss this argument as simply untrue. Maybe natural gas isn't "just" as bad as coal, but maybe it's 75% as bad? Or 50%? Maybe it's much closer than we think?

I applaud you, however, for acknowledging in your piece that your work
is supported by the gas drilling industry. That's a disclosure that I
would submit your peers at PennState would do well in the long run to
admit to more often. As academics, I would argue, that it's really
essential.


Second set of comments:

Mr Engelder here gives a good demonstration of disingenuousness himself.

While he attempts to scapegoat Cabot as a bad operator, he fails to note
that problems with water and health are common where gas drilling takes
place, across the continent and likely the world, and Cabot isn't the
driller in all those instances.
DEP's recent action is of course not clear evidence that "the state
Department of Environmental Protection is also working with the industry to make sure groundwater is protected." That water was not protected, because DEP has put the desires of industry ahead of the needs of the environment and the people who live in it. I would like to encourage Mr Engelder to drink some of that "protected" water and see how "protected" it has been for the last two years.
Finally, the New York academic, Robert Howarth, has not claimed "that
exploiting Marcellus Shale gas is comparable to burning coal in terms of
greenhouse-gas emissions." The title of Professor Howarths' paper is
"Preliminary Assessment of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas
Obtained by Hydraulic Fracturing.
"
http://www.damascuscitizens.org/GHGemissions_Cornell.pdf "Preliminary," as Mr Engelder surely knows, means, 'these are the indications so far, and they are worth considering, but we don't have the final answer yet.' Mr Howarth recently wrote to me, "We ...continue to work hard to put the best science we can into the analysis." Since such an analysis has not been done before, and this one is not yet complete, therefore Mr Engelder cannot truthfully say about the possibility that natural gas is worse for greenhouse gas emissions than coal, "This is simply not the case."


My point is all of us need to read between the lines when anyone is reporting, as you all know there are many ways to interpret things.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page