Comment

Comment by John Reed on April 3, 2010 at 2:23pm

My point is I thought you guys were much more concerned with the hydro-fracking chemicals (poisons) that are polluting the aquifiers in Dimmock. That's what 95% of this thread has been dedicatd to. I am not trained in recognizing natural migration or any other migration for that matter. I do think it is relevent for this particular thread, that none of the fracking chemicals have shown up in any of the articles regarding contamination of wells in Dimmock. All I have seen is methane migration. My point all along has been the real danger is the naturally ocurring elements pose a far greater danger than the fracking chemicals. This further justifies that for now...

Comment by CJK on April 3, 2010 at 11:49am

So what is your point, John? Was this thread started for another purpose? What else would you like to discuss? Start the topic and we can contribute I am sure.

Comment by John Reed on April 3, 2010 at 12:03am

95% of this thread has pertained to the chemicals used in the hydro-fracking process and the "poisions" our aquifers especially in Dimmock have been subjected to.

Comment by CJK on April 2, 2010 at 11:30pm

John: It is purely speculation that it won't migrate to the aquifer also. While some argue that it is speculation because it it very hard to prove and the industry knows that, but the fact remains that the level of methane steadily increased after drilling in the area and in some casess caused wells to explode. As documented by the DEP. This is not speculation. Just because there was methane release does not mean that there had to be a release of brine and fracking chemicals, this could come later or not at all. One does not have a direct correlation to the other.

Comment by John Reed on April 2, 2010 at 2:04pm

CJK. Where did the brine and fracking chemicals migrate? Just the methane found it's way to the aquifier?

Comment by John Reed on April 2, 2010 at 2:02pm

Where is it documented that it was a direct result of the drilling and fracking process ? This is purely speculation. I've heard several sides of the story. Too bad nobody had their water tested prior to drilling activity. As this evolves and water testing is done going forward we may get a better picture.

Comment by CJK on April 2, 2010 at 12:25pm

The migration was a direct result of the drilling and fracking process. What layer it came from is irrelevant. Do you really think that when you drill and frack that you only disturb the deep layers and not the shallow ones?

Cabot only helped in Dimock because they were required to. I hope you are correct about "Less Common" and "unfortunate occurence" because I believe you will see more of this as drilling goes on, in fact there have been two more additional cases that I know of already in Bradford County. But the companies involved have tried to keep them out of the limelight.

Comment by John Reed on April 2, 2010 at 8:03am

Here's something we might be able find out to get a better understanding of what really happened.

Does anyone know if Methane is the only issue ? If it is I would think it is more than likely a result of natural migration from a shallower layer of shale. If the water wells in question are contaminated with radiation, methane, brine or chemicals used in the fracking process then maybe it was a result of fracking.

Comment by John Reed on April 2, 2010 at 7:57am

I agree 100%. The only company in my area is drilling three test wells this year. Each one will have water testing for every water well within a 1 square mile radius. They have received negative press in CO, so I think they are being proactive rather than reactive.

I have heard several different stories regarding Methane in Dimmock. Bottom line is it looks like Cabot is at least making an attempt to be responsible even though it is not known with certainty whether they caused it or if it was natural migration. Again, I think it's important to not make hasty judgements or have preconceived notions about what the future holds. With the number of natural gas wells in the US currently producing we are bound to see things like this from time to time. I believe that is exactly what we are seeing. An unfortunate ocurrence which happens from time to time.

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 2, 2010 at 6:04am

This is a perfect example of why the lease language is so important. When these leases were signed, they were most likely boilerplate leases used by the company that give no protections to the landowner.

No one signs those anymore. At least if they stop to think before putting pen to paper.

In the case of Dimock, it would have been good for EVERYONE if water testing had been done before to establish a baseline, then it would be possible to know exactly what extent was due to natural methane movement.

Now Cabot has no choice but to deal with the problem (which may or may not totally be their fault). I am not taking sides with Cabot here, just pointing out that they would have a better chance if they had pre-drilling water tests. It has become the norm to test all wells within a certain area before drilling now, so cases like this will become LESS COMMON.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page