Comment

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 11, 2010 at 4:34am

cjk
It is not a matter of trying to censor, rather of making sure some truth is available in between all the conjecture.
I live just south of Dimock and all of the Cabot activity. I go to Dimock for various reasons. Just a short time ago I did a tour of the "problem" areas and went around looking at the new work being done, etc.
I spoke to people living in and around the supposed poisoned water area and I drove the road where the methane is in the wells, even saw the water being delivered to the houses on that road.

First, there is methane only in the wells, and no one knows if it was there before. No tests were done by any residents or the company. Keep in mind that if these people were not in such a hurry to sign when they did, they would have negotiated a lease with much more protection. But they saw FREE MONEY and signed the first thing. The houses on that street are very low value, so I assume the people were desperate for money.
I also spoke to others in the immediate area who have had NO problems and believe the residents are looking for more $$ with this.

Second, you have to remember that each well site will have lots of activity for a SHORT period of time, then it will all go away and be replanted. Life returns to normal and you can't even notice the well sites.

I have wells being drilled, so far, 3 miles east of me, one was done 5 miles west, and the activity north is moving toward me now. I have no problem with the increased activity because I have done my homework. I know what is happening in each area, I know it is temporary and will move on, I know jobs are being created and money is flowing in, and I have no problem signing a gas lease when I decide to. I have every intention of signing and having a well, but I am going to make sure problems cannot happen because I took my time to LEGALLY contract for everything to be right.

Comment by CJK on April 11, 2010 at 3:21am

hunter777:

What are we supposed to be discussing on this thread? It seems to me that beacuse you are hearing things you do not want to hear you are trying to censor the direction. Please add your positive experiences to this thread. I will be visiting the link you left afgter I post this message.
Do either rfs or hunter777 have a well near them? How far ? Is your water still same quality and quantity as before? Sorry but the DImmock I saw in specific areas were unacceptable, that is not to say that there were still nice areas. I did see that as well.But it does not make it right for those that are not as fortunate as others.

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 9, 2010 at 3:16pm

Thank you, hunter777
I agree totally

Comment by daniel cohen on April 9, 2010 at 9:25am

Dear Carolyn,
I feel your pain, frustration and anger. You and the folks in Dimock have unfortunately been the canaries in the mine. The O & G folks have spent/are spending fortunes of money to cover their tracks and to avoid taking corrective measures.That is part of the mission here, as I see it. To inform, to highlight, to obtain justice for those like yourself.

It was/is totally avoidable. Let me say that again-it was/is totally avoidable. The techniques exist to minimize damage and to protect the environment. They are costly, but available. The industry is taking an economic approach- less costly to cause the damage and to piecemeal correct to a degree than to really be held to account.

With thanks to Jean Michel LeTennier there are 2 processes to review immediately

1) www.gasfrac.com

and

2) closed loop systems with on site decontamination and recycling

Both eliminate the need for extensive regulations, are available immediately and no one seems to be talking about them. Our regulators need to know, our oversight committees need to know, and the O & G folk need to be required to employ them on an ongoing basis. Be a voice, a loud voice, so that a real partnership can be forged and the horrors corrected. Stay strong, stay focused- we are all in this together.

Dan

Comment by daniel cohen on April 9, 2010 at 6:58am

Dear Molly & Carolyn,
You guys may think that you're disagreeing, but I don't think so. Molly, you and us all are wished the greatest of rewards, may we all become wealthy, may all go as you describe it is going. That would be the best case scenario, and we can hope for the best, but as Carolyn points out we need to prepare for the worst.

You Molly sound passionate in your belief, and that's wonderful- but surely you wouldn't wish the worst case scenario on anyone. Join us here to help us partner up with the O & G companies to make them good neighbors. We seek to do that by carefully defining what is or is not permitted and then to carefully monitor compliance.

Thankfully the folks doing the drilling in your neck of the woods sound like good neighbors. Sadly, those drilling in Dimock have turned out not to be.

You guys are both correct from your respective positions, but one is from the positive end and the other is from the negative end-yet both are correct.

Our focus on this site was/is to help make the marriage work. Unfortunately, neither of the comments, though passionate and true, have contributed to that end. We can, we must, do better.
Dan

Comment by Carol on April 9, 2010 at 5:54am

I am one of those who are "gung ho" for drilling - I live in an area where there are now numerous horizontal wells with no problems whatsoever. There are drilling companies out there who seem to care about what they are doing and how they are doing it. I believe we have companies like that in my area. I hope the problems in Dimock get resolved soon. As for Westmoreland County, I hope they start drilling more and faster. I haven't talked to a single resident in my area who is opposed, in any way, to the drilling. Just thought I'd throw in some positive comments on this site.

Comment by daniel cohen on April 8, 2010 at 4:14pm

Dear John,CJK,and all others who follow our posts,

We may be at the point where we might wish to declare what we stand for and what we're about.
To that thought I wondered if we might care to label our group efforts. We are clearly a kick-butt
bunch, looking for basic truth, trying to find the right way to partner with the O & G crowd while
protecting our health,environment,property values and aquifer. We stand ready to offer whatever
helpful info we might have, and seek to encourage responsible actions on all parts. We've come
to understand that there are certain basics that need to be kept in mind:

Tentative Suggestions:
1) If you don't have a landowners group yet, consider forming one.
2) Regardless of the actual deal/lease you made, you may still have rights that need addressing
3) Consider having a knowledgeable attorney to represent the groups interests
4) A comprehensive water analysis ought to be a prime consideration for the group members
5) The handling of the frac water needs careful review to be certain that it is treated with intelligence
and concern for the environment.
6) The storage and transportation of the frac water needs careful review to be certain that it is
treated with intelligence and concern for the environment.
7) The responsibility to ensure that things are done properly is in your hands. You cannot rely
on the government to look out for you.
8) A watch committee ought to be formed to keep tabs on the water quality and the extent of the
aquifer. Keep in mind that pollution of the aquifer becomes everybody's concern.
9) Noise, atmospheric pollution, leakage from holding pools becomes everybody's concern
10) The Golden Rule for an economic interest is not the Golden Rule we learned as children and
good neighbors. For business, Those Who Have The Gold, Make The Rule!

We stand ready to try to help with approaches to each of the above areas, and welcome additions.
We are THE FRACKIN' GROUP

What do you think-too corny?

Comment by daniel cohen on April 8, 2010 at 4:37am

Dear John & CJK,
You guys rock!! You are bringing to the fore exactly what we need to know and to prepare for. Excellent stuff.
Dan

Comment by John Reed on April 8, 2010 at 2:21am

Drilling sludge sinks to the bottom of the frac pond as gravity causes it to settle, along with other heavier elements. That is why I would not want a frac pond on my property. If you read the articles I posted yesterday, they mention the elements left over after the water treatment will be disposed of in authorized landfills or it gets incinerated. To me this is a much better option than a frack pond.

The best part is the water gets recycled and reused for future fracking.

Comment by CJK on April 8, 2010 at 12:04am

Cities Push Back as EPA Begins Study of Fracking's Impact on Water

Philadelphia Moved to Ban Fracking in Its Watershed, Pittsburgh Sees Problems
by Dave Levitan - Apr 7th, 2010
in

The Environmental Protection Agency’s science advisors meet today to begin studying the impacts on drinking water of the gas drilling practice known as hydraulic fracturing.

While the gas industry argues that the chemical-infused technique is perfectly safe and vital to reaching vast gas supplies, concerns about its potential impact on water supplies is spreading outward from New York, where an environmental review process has held up gas drilling in parts of the Marcellus Shale, a gas-rich formation that underlies several states including Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.

The city of Philadelphia is also now attempting to block gas drilling near the Delaware River watershed, which supplies about half of the city’s tap water. The City Council unanimously passed a resolution in late March that calls on the Delaware River Basin Commission to deny any hydraulic fracturing permits.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting large quantities of water along with secret mixes of chemicals deep underground in order to break up gas-containing rock formations. The technique has been used for decades, but in the Marcellus Shale region, it is combined with horizontal drilling and other methods that environmentalists fear could pollute groundwater sources and cause severe problems downstream.

“The EPA study is a really great start to answer some questions,” said Erika Staaf, clean water advocate for the non-profit PennEnvironment. “If drilling is moving forward, which it is, we want to make sure that it happens in a way that fully protects the environment, aquatic life, habitats, our forests and public health.”


Pennsylvania Fracking

Fracking is already under way in parts of Pennsylvania , and oil and gas companies such as Exxon and BP are lobbying Congress to keep all potential obstacles ­ including regulators ­ out of the way. The Marcellus Shale holds about 350 trillion cubic feet of natural gas ­ enough to keep the country going for 15 years at present consumption rates.

“Ideally, what they would be doing is either slowing down the drilling or stopping the drilling until they have a better sense of what the science is,” said Deborah Goldberg, a managing attorney with Earthjustice’s Northeast office.

“There have been no signs of that happening in Pennsylvania , and in New York , it’s happening only because of the environmental review process, and when that’s over, we expect there will be huge pressure to drill.”

So far, most of the documented connections between fracking fluid and drinking water involve individual wells. In Western Pennsylvania , however, there is some indication of larger dangers.

During drought conditions in the summer of 2008, a drinking water advisory was issued covering about 350,000 people in the Pittsburgh area citing high levels of “total dissolved solids,” or TDS, in tap water coming from the Monongahela River . TDS can cover a number of substances, including salts and some potentially more dangerous chemicals.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection listed a number of potential sources ­ including increases in “non-conventional drilling.” The DEP instructed sewage treatment facilities that had been accepting wastewater from fracking wells to reduce the amount they treated, from 20 percent of the total down to 1 percent.

Elsewhere, fracking projects in Wyoming have apparently resulted in contamination of some drinking water wells, although officials said the presence of chemicals like 2-butoxyethanol could come sources other than gas drilling. Pittsburgh ’s TDS levels remain the only documented case of a large water supply with contamination potentially associated with hydraulic fracturing.

Drilling companies generally keep the contents of their “fracking fluid” private, but mixtures of chemicals including benzene and other carcinogens have been used. Wastewater from wells can contain traces of those chemicals as well as naturally occurring substances that are pulled up from deep underground; these tend to include salts, and wastewater has been found to be as much as five times as salty as seawater.


Will Study Lead to Regulation?

Goldberg said it is unlikely that the EPA will step in and strictly regulate fracking in the Marcellus Shale area, in spite of the study starting now.

“To do a really serious study of the impacts on drinking water is a monumental undertaking, because it really requires some very serious hydrological studies that either are not being done or are being done only by industry and are not being shared,” she said, adding that if drilling near the Delaware River’s headwaters does move forward, drinking water could be at risk in New York and Philadelphia.

“I think that the likelihood of their protection increases with the vigilance of the citizens who care about this,” she said. “I think the people in New York , the people in Pennsylvania , need to take the responsibility to ensure that their governments are stepping to the plate and protecting their water supply even while this is going on.”

Such action seems to have worked, at least for the moment, in the Philadelphia area. The non-profit group Delaware Riverkeeper Network was among many to applaud the City Council’s move to block hydraulic fracturing permits. Deputy Director Tracy Carluccio said, “We’re putting their feet to the fire in our watershed, and that’s one of the reasons there are no wells yet. It has been held up even though the rest of Pennsylvania is going like gangbusters.”


Industry Response

For its part, the oil and gas industry maintains that fracking is a proven process with a long track record of environmental safety. An industry group called the Marcellus Shale Coalition, which is made up of dozens of companies, said it will participate and aid in the EPA’s study “as appropriate.” Generally, the industry claims that fracking is already appropriately regulated by states, even though those regulations vary drastically around the country.

There are currently twin bills, dubbed the FRAC Act, in both houses of Congress that would bring regulation of fracking under some federal oversight. The legislation would give EPA authority to regulate fracking, and it would also require that companies disclose specifically what chemicals are in the fracking fluids used. A Bush administration decision in 2005 exempted fracking from regulation under the Clean Water Act, and since then industry has been slow to reveal the chemical concoctions used in the wells.

"There have been no identified groundwater contamination incidents due to hydraulic fracturing, as noted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, other state regulators and the U.S. Groundwater Protection Council,” the coalition said in a statement. “Our industry is confident that an objective evaluation of hydraulic fracturing will reach the same conclusion as other studies – that it is a safe and well-regulated process that is essential to the development of natural gas."

Environmentalists disagree, but it is unlikely the EPA will come to any conclusion on the issue until 2012. And even if threats to drinking water don’t move regulators to act against the practice, Goldberg noted a number of other environmental impacts fracking can have as well.

“It’s really only a part of the problem,” she said. “The transmission pipelines are known to have a lot of leakage of methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas. There are huge amounts of diesel fuel used for both the trucks and drilling rigs, and the emissions from those combine with sunlight and tend to create big ozone problems in areas where you would never expect to see it. From a health perspective, the air problems are probably even more important than the water problems.”

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 19
• 20
• 21
• 22
• 23
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page