Penn Land Owners

I agree with James - I think people are forgetting about the money the landowners will be receiving. And, he is also right about the water - I already drink bottled water because I don't think our well water is safe to drink. Most of my neighbors also don't drink their well water. The risk from fracturing is so small compared to the benefits that farmers/landowners will be receiving. So many of these farmers have struggled to pay the bills for years. Finally, their land is going to pay them back. Also, I prefer to see drilling rigs and wells rather than housing developments being built on farmland.

Very well put Molly.

Dear Marie, I've been following all this conflab for several days. My heart goes out to you because you are so passionate, and safety is your paramount concern. That is totally commendable. Maybe someone has already written something to this effect, so forgive me if I'm repeating something. The ground water table is mere hundreds of feet below the surface. Picture getting in your car and driving more than a mile. Now picture doing it straight down. 6000 plus feet, through layers of rock, is a long way. I've seen Chesapeake's triple casings in person. There's simply no way anything is going to squeak through those puppies. Maybe Cabot was sloppy in Dimock. Maybe they weren't. But PA isn't a sloppy state where controls are concerned. They are over-controlling in most cases. It's like all those "contradictions" in the Bible. If there really were any, it would have been world-wide inescapable headline news, since so many are desperate to refute the Bible and avoid conscience calling to honor a Maker. Same with actual problems from the fracing. It's been being done for years. If it were causing unsolvable problems, it would be major headline news, because so many powers-that-be are opposed to natural gas use, for greed and other reasons. The President's push is for nuclear, which probably stands to wreak much more environmental and heath havoc than fracing. Pollution of water is unquestionably a huge factor, probably the biggest, to consider. Virtually every thinking person realizes that, including the gas companies. Those companies that are sloppy for quick bucks will not last, nor will their damage. But isn't air even more important than water? We can't buy bottled air. The environment, particularly the air, can be made very significantly cleaner in the near future ONLY by major conversion to natural gas, both to generate electricity and to power big vehicles, which can't be moved by current hybrid technology. We all should get on T. Boone Picken's bandwagon, big time. People hate to listen to the rich and smart. Not very wise to shun their advice. My annual income is under $30K by the way. People love to punish the rich by taxes. Ridiculously counter-productive to motivating people to get smart and get rich. By the way, money isn't the root of all evil. The LOVE of money is. Those farmers didn't go looking for this money, it came to them, and many of them are terrified by it. And while we're on Bible stuff, debate is either good or bad, depending on its spirit. Where strife is, the wise person simply withdraws. I hope we can all try to avoid a spirit of strife.

Dear Shalers,
Your explorations on this site mirror the ones we've been having on Aquifer Contamination Parts 1 & 2 under Shale Forum Blogs. This is my first time here, but I feel compelled to share some thoughts.

The comments by John Reed are on target and rather wise I think. He writes:
"The company in my area is doing pre drilling water testing for every household with a well within a one square mile radius. post drilling water tests will then be the norm. Not 100% sure of the timetable. If I am fortunate enough to be placed in a drilling unit I will also have an independent water testing company test prior to and after any drilling activity. This will give me a baseline. "

His caution is well taken-we need to be own own monitors and to hold the drilling companies responsible for what they do and don't do.

Carolyn appears to mean well when she says " I've seen Chesapeake's triple casings in person. There's simply no way anything is going to squeak through those puppies" but her conclusions are not matched by the facts as I understand them from the blogs on aquifer contamination.

Her statement "Maybe Cabot was sloppy in Dimock. Maybe they weren't" is at odds with the multi-million dollar lawsuit currently going forward against Cabot, and the 6 figure fine imposed on Cabot by the DEP or EPA( I forget which)

There are the same disconnects with the facts and her statements about the fracing process. Again, rather fully explored in the aquifer contamination blog.

Carolyn states"Those companies that are sloppy for quick bucks will not last, nor will their damage." If only that were true. Halliburton, the outfit hired by Cabot to do the drilling, has been around a long time, continues to be around, and their damage doesn't fade away with time. I personally know of Texas multi-millionairs who can't drink water from their own property. They have it trucked and piped and bottled in. And their land has been permanently impaired. And I weep at the insult to mother earth.

There are truths out here, but many vested interested prevent the clarity to see them. All this was explored at some length in aquifer contamination Part 1 and need not be revisited here, other than to say that the conclusions drawn there are at odds with the conclusions drawn here.

Oil companies are not necessarily bad, and those Shalers sharing their insights are not trying to mislead or are bad folks- but we as landowners need to take the lead in protecting our land, our own and our neighbors water supply and all that dwells upon the land. Noone else will do that for us.

Dan

Dear Carolyn,
Great effort has been put into dulling the impact of what you and your neighbors are going through. Much has been written playing down your plight. Your story needs to be told, needs to be accepted for what is and what happened, and only you and your neighbors can do that. Please feel free to visit Aquifer Contamination Part 1 to post anything that you'd care to say. In Part 2 we are focusing on what needs to be done to protect others from what happened to you guys. The precautions all require that the individual landowner take responsibility for his and his neighbors interests. Sadly, the good neighbor policy of looking out for each other, and taking someone at his word is not an acceptable corporate model. Given the rules of the game, our voices need to be raised to cut through the massed hype of the business interests and to do legally what used to be done as a matter of course as a good neighbor. So be it- if we need to protect ourselves then let's do it with dignity, care and with the greatest good in mind. Tell your story my friend, loudly, often,and in as many places as possible.
Stay strong.
Dan

Dear Marie,
Thanks for that excellent reference-I wish the news were better-but we have to play the cards we're dealt, and sadly that means that we all have to watch our backs when dealing with economic interests that answer to the bottom line of profit.
Dan

I thought this website is supposed to be informational about leasing and drilling activities.All it seems to be is a debate forum.

E Coli Contaminated Well Water; Alden, NY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To all you people wanting to buy a home in the NY countryside, read below. The Dairy factory farms are killing all the wells in NY and now HOG factory farms are marching north! Enjoy


The Buffalo News: Eastern Suburbs: E. coli found in water from wells in Alden (broken link)

E. coli bacteria has been found in water that comes from wells in the
Town of Alden, a discovery that is concerning town and Erie County
officials.
According to correspondence from the county Health Department that was
read during Monday’s Town Board meeting, a “substantial increase in
positive E. coli samples in the existing private water supply” was
found after water quality was tested.
The letter categorized the discovery as a “real public health
concern.”
Councilman Bill Weber said the discovery was made after the town urged
residents of proposed Water District No. 5 to have their water quality
tested because the U.S. Department of Agriculture said the town could
potentially receive greater funding for the proposed water district if
there was documentation of a water quality issue.
“There is a very serious need for improved water supply,“ the
letter reads. “This is a health factor-based need.”
“This is for people in the southern part of the Alden area who are on
private wells,“ County Public Health Engineer Tom Casey said. “Not
for people who use Erie County water.”
While Casey did say the county found an increase in the amount of E.
coli in residents’ well systems, he was not overly concerned about the
health risk to Alden residents.
“If you ingest [the water] without preparing it, like boiling it, it
is a potential problem,” Casey said. “This can create a problem,
but it’s not that serious unless you come in direct contact with it.”

Bathing with the contaminated water or using it to wash dishes in sudsy
water should not cause a health concern, according to Casey.
Residents of Water District No. 5 who chose to have their water tested
by the county were informed of the test results. However, Weber said
other residents have not had their water tested.
“They are flirting with disaster,” he said. “They can have their
water tested by the county at a reasonable rate. I think it is around
$15.”
Currently, Metzger believes, at least 20 percent of the town’s
population is without usable water. In addition, Metzger said the northeast
end of Marilla, which abuts the southeast portion of Alden, is also in
desperate need of usable water.
Funding for the proposed water district will not only come from grants
and federal assistance, but also from town taxes, said Metzger and
Weber.


Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/buffalo-area/177454-e-coli-contamina...

WATER Chelsea Green Publishing / By Will Allen COMMENTS: 31 Agriculture Is One of the Most Polluting and Dangerous Industries
Industrial ag supplies most of our food, yet its lack of regulation may be more of a threat than Wall Street's.
May 11, 2009 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Water headlines via email.
Advertisement The following is by Will Allen, author of The War on Bugs.

Taxpayers are demanding that government enforce existing regulations and create more stringent rules to limit the excess and greed in banking, insurance, housing, and on Wall Street. But, in the rush to regulate, we can't forget to oversee industrial agriculture. It is one of our most polluting and dangerous industries. Like the financial sectors, its practices have not been well regulated for the last thirty years. Let me run down a few of the major problems that have developed because of our poorly regulated U.S. agriculture.

Carbon Foot Print: The U.S. EPA estimated in 2007 that agriculture in the U.S. was responsible for about 18% of our carbon footprint, which is huge because the U.S. is the largest polluter in the world. This should include (but doesn't) the manufacture and use of pesticides and fertilizers, fuel and oil for tractors, equipment, trucking and shipping, electricity for lighting, cooling, and heating, and emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other green house gases. Unfortunately, the EPA estimate of 18% still doesn't include a large portion of the fuel, the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, some of the nitrous oxide, all of the CFCs and bromines, and most of the transport emissions. When they are counted, agriculture's share of the U.S. carbon footprint will be at least 25 to 30%.

Oftentimes we see all greenhouse gasses as being equivalent to carbon dioxide (CO2). But, methane emissions are 21 times and nitrous oxides 310 times more damaging as greenhouse gasses than CO2. Since agriculture is one of the largest producers of methane and nitrous oxide, the extent of the agricultural impact is staggering. Unless we change our bad habits of food production and long distance delivery, we will not be able to deal with climate change.

Fertilizer Pollution/Dead Zones: Factory farming is polluting the ground, river, and ocean water with high amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous, and other fertilizers. High levels of nitrates and nitrites were found in twenty-five thousand community wells that provided drinking water to two thirds of the nation's population. More than fifteen million people in two hundred eighty communities are drinking water with phosphorous or phosphates which mostly come from industrial farming operations.

Nitrate and phosphorous fertilizer runoff flow into the rivers and ultimately end up in the ocean. The river water rides up over the heavier salt water when it reaches the ocean and algae blooms develop on the fertilizer rich water. When the algae die, the bacteria use up all of the oxygen in decomposing them. This creates an oxygen dead (or hypoxic) zone. In 1995, scientists identified 60 dead zones around the world.

Recent results published in 2008 identified 405 oceanic dead zones. The prime cause for dead zones is the use of highly soluble synthetic fertilizers, which are overused to obtain maximum yields. The government regulations on the total maximum daily load (tmdl) of synthetic nitrogen, or phosphorous fertilizer coming off of farms were established under the Clean Water Act. But those statutes are routinely not enforced. There are exceptions, but in general the regulators have been in a thirty-year coma.

Pesticides in Water: In addition to fertilizer pollution of our food and water, high amounts of pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones are also in the food, soil, water, and air. More than twelve thousand wells that provide water to 100 million people have arsenic or lead concentrations above the health based limits established by the U.S.EPA. Arsenic has been used on crops in the U.S. since 1867 and lead-arsenic since 1890. Arsenic is still widely used today on turf crops, corn, soy, and cotton as an herbicide or defoliant. The EPA, FDA, USDA and almost all state agencies, however, do not even keep good track of arsenic use. It is hard to regulate when you don't know how much is being used.

While we don't know how much was used, we do know that nearly 30 million people in the U.S. are drinking water contaminated with Atrazine, Simazine, Telone II, 2,4-D, or 2,4,5-T. All of these chemicals are related to DDT and were first sold in the 1940s, after they were developed in World War II. Simazine and 2,4,5-T had their EPA registrations cancelled more than twenty years ago because they were so deadly; yet millions of people in the U.S. still drink water contaminated with these two terrible war toys. All these DDT relatives caused cancer and multiple birth defects in tests on laboratory animals. They continue today to greatly damage bird populations in farm country.

Some more fish to fry below !!! On a much larger scale than Hydro fracking chemicals !! Shall we prioritize our health concerns now ?

Marie, I could go on and on and on.... All day and all night. Please tell me your horror story in detail. Maybe I missed the specifics. If I did please educate me on exactly what you are going through as a result of natural gas wells in your area.

Dear John,
You share valuable information. There are polluting practices that endanger us all. Becoming aware of them, and trying to do what we can to regulate/clean up/eliminate them would enrich us all. How do you see the big picture situation from the point of view of trying to improve it?
Dan

Dear Christine,
You wrote"I thought this website is supposed to be informational about leasing and drilling activities.All it seems to be is a debate forum."

Perhaps I miss your point-increasing our knowledge about leasing & drilling activities is informational, isn't it? By trying to avoid the many pitfalls, and keeping in mind goals beyond profit and power, aren't we serving a greater good?
Dan

I've stated over and over that my opinion is that natural gas exploration and specifically the hydro-fracking process is the lesser of the many evils when we refer to potential environmental hazards. I'm not saying that it is 100% safe. I do believe however it is being blown up to a point that certain individuals are trying to scare the general population into believing it is a danger of far greater magnitude than it's history would suggest. There are documented cases of possible contamination as a result of hydrofracking, I do not deny that. Knowing that, it is my opinion that every land owner whether they own 1 or 1000 acres needs to become educated. They would be wise to join a non profit land owner group even if they currently have no desire to lease their land to a gas company. The education they can gain with regard to the entire process will help them to make a more educated decision. We should all be encouraging our neighbors to become educated, especially those we believe have the potential to be easily pressured by a land man into signing a a boiler plate lease with minimal protections. After all, what my neighbor decides can also have a direct impact on my land, my water and my ability to obtain fair monetary compensation. Natural gas exploration is here in Pa. It isn't going anywhere. From what I have learned it makes logical sense to pursue it. It's potential benefits far outweigh the potential detriments froma big picture standpoint. With this being said I need to continue to stay educated and the information that I gather along with my land owner group should be used to communicate our concerns to our elected officals. We ought to let them know what our concerns are so they may be addressed accordingly. Natural gas is the perfect stepping stone for our nation. We should continue to pursure "greener" alternatives to our current energy consumption. Solar,wind,water and yes natural gas. All of the above are with certainty "greener" alternatives. The use of diesel fuel, home heating oil, gasoline and coal are far more detrimental to the environment than natural gas. It is not currently feasible to convert the entire nation to solar,wind and water power and it won't be for a long time if ever. We need to move forward with caution and continue to learn as we go, making well informed logical decisions.

Marie. They use 4-5 million gallons of fluid for hydrofracking. 99.5% of which is water mixed with sand. The remaining 1/2 percent is a mixture of chemicals used in every day life by millions of people accross our country who routinely dump it down their drains. Only 30% of the 1/2 percent of chemicals in hydrofracking are brought back to the surface. Unless there is a break in the well casings or a spill on the surface there should not be a problem with our water tables becoming contaminated routinely. Does this happen ? Yes. Will it happen ? Yes. I believe it does not happen routinely however. When it does we need to have protections in place to cover ourselves and the gas companies need to be held accountable. Did you know that the amount of salt that we spread on our PA highways every winter is equivalent to the amount of brine returned to the surface of 31,000 horizontal wells? Keep in mind, the wells are a one time thing possibly two if they are refracked once. The salt on our roadways happens every year ! I believe the bigger danger is the stuff they are pulling out from deep within the earth that naturally occurs at these depths. (heavy metals and low level radio active materials) We need to push for laws that protect us from this much more than the chemicals used in hydrofracking. I for one would not allow a storage pond on my property. I would prefer that it be transported to a facilty and treated. If and when I sign a lease it will only be with this provision in place. And as far as I know diesel fuel has not been used in hydro fracking since 2004. Please see below from Wikipedia.

The EPA report did find uncertainties in knowledge of how fracturing fluid migrates through rocks, and upon its release service companies voluntarily agreed to stop using diesel fuel as a component of fracturing fluid, due to its potential as a source of benzene contamination.

Yet another scare tactic. I'm afraid you are 100% black and white Marie. You are only intersted in how badly you can tarnish natural gas exploration. I am saddened by your ignorance.

Dear John & Marie,
You both speak well and passionately. You've articulated the problems clearly in your statements.Briefly:
1) contamination can/does occur
2) we are all in potential danger
3) the responsibility is ours to make sure we and our neighbors are protected. No one else can be relied upon to do it for us.

I think that the focus now shifts to how can we best look out for ourselves, our neighbors and the environment. That is the point of Aquifer Contamination-Part 2 and your voices/opinions would be most welcomed.

Am I wrong, or is there another need that you folks are highlighting- that of being able to articulate to others on posts all along this Marcellus Shale site that which is most obvious to us here? If that is a proper read,then perhaps we need to form a ' flying truth squad' and make it a point to try to educate those on the other post areas. This will not be a pleasant nor easy task, but perhaps one that needs to be done. Personally I've been doing that in a minor way, limiting myself to the Pennsylvania posts since mt property lies there-but that is both short sighted of ne and somewhat selfish. John rightly points out the need to think bigger and broader about the issue as a whole, and Marie drives home the point with her her observation "epa just found out that they are still using diesel fuel !!!!!!!! ah... beef and veggies.. sounds like everybody will have toxins to eat!!! "

Are we in any agreement here about how best to tackle the problem?

Dan

We need to ban the resurfacing of our road systems. It's comprised of oil and other nasty chemicals. Also, starting next fall, let's eliminate the use of salt and calcium on our road ways in the winter. That stuff is destroying the environment as it drains into local ditches and streams. Don't forget to tax the farmer b/c his cows have flatulence--it contains way to much methane.

Come on, Marie. Wake yourself out of the obvious nightmare you live in every day. Maybe focus some positive energy for something worth while.

Everyone is missing the point. Let's prioritize the issues. If you feel so strongly about hydro-fracking and it's detminental effect on the envirnoment you should feel much stronger against 1000 other things. As I stated prior I can go on and on and on. I can list one by one the things all around us that are far worse for us and the envirnment. Since natural gas exploration is new and fresh in PA it gets so much more attention than all of the other things far more corrosive to us as a society.

Dear J&J,Carolyn and John,
When John says"Everyone is missing the point" he is probably right. If the polluting sources can get us to ask the wrong questions, they don't have to care about the answers.
Carolyn is basically saying 'let's fix the problem, not the blame' to which we might all agree at least in part.
Guys, perhaps we ought to develop a set of questions to keep in mind as we address this issue, questions which keep us on the right track for answers that can improve the situation and help us to fix, not blame.

I'm reminded that many of the comments posted on this and other posts across the Marcellus site have a focus on jobs, money, economy,etc. I am left with a feeling that those questioners are seeking to know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Perhaps we can address that perspective to benefit us all through the questions that we may come up with here.

Dear James,
Drilling per se is not the the real issue. The questions to be asked and answered are more like the following:
1)Is there pollution occurring?
2)If so, who is responsible?
3)What can be done to prevent the pollution from occurring?
4)What needs to be done to correct the areas that have already been polluted?
5)What governing authorities have the responsibility for the oversight and control?
6)Have they exercised their authority to deal with the above questions, and if not, why not?
7)What do we, as concerned citizens need to do to make sure that the proper controls are being utilized on our behalf?

There are no angels or devils in this situation-there is greed, corporate profit, ignorance and vested interests. It is possible for us all to be winners here, but it will require us to be alert, responsible and legally smart. Sad, but apparently required now in the face of the vested interests whose only bottom line is profit. There is a sad story I'll share with you-

In Nov.2009 a documentary film premiered on national television that told the story of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia from the view of those people who live an work in the coal fields. Mountaintop removal mining is an extremely destructive practice that literally blows the tops off entire mountain ranges in Appalachia. The resulting rock, waste and rubble are then dumped into nearby valleys, permanently buring streams. nearby communities are being destroyed by floods, poisoned water an intimidation from coal companies. Coal Country is a dramatic look at modern coal mining, telling the impact that coal has had in this region from both the mining companies and the communities affected.

I see the same pattern beginning to emerge here, and if we can partner up with the gas companies as equal partners, then the tragedies of the past need not visit us. We need to be responsible and very vigilant , along the lines of the questions posed at the beginning of this way too long response.
Dan

Daniel, please don't equate NG in PA with coal in WVA. Coal owns WVa and coal mining is so much more destructive (as witnessed by the coaltop removal mining) than NG as to not belong in the same sentence. Please don't lose whatever credibility you have by making such comparisons.

Dear Gasman,
The exact equation of the two are not equal, as you point out. The analogy, however, is unfortunately much closer to the truth than not. We need to learn from that which has gone before, in order to prevent the errors from catching us. In both cases(Coal & Gas/oil mining) the bottom line is profit, the companies are in business to look out for themselves, pollution is a side effect of that pursuit and the landowner ultimately is left with the results. Have I gone astray in my thinking yet? The controls upon the industries (government,state,federal) have not in the past successfully held the vested interests in check enough to avoid terrible contamination from occurring. Have I overstated the logic case yet? And if I recall properly, didn't you in a much earlier post indicate that landowners need to look out for themselves, since industry is just doing what any business does-make profit for its shareholders.?(If I am misremembering and improperly attributing that thought to you I apologize in advance)

Don't you agree that a balance of responsibility is needed so that the errors, from whatever source, can be controlled to a much greater extent to avoid the pitfalls? Can we both agree, here & now, that our shared goal is for a win-win situation where the Gas/oil interests are met and the landowner is protected? To the extent to which we can agree, I'd look forward to hearing your thoughts on how best to achieve that goal.

Your comments in the past on other posts have been helpful to me personally in formulating my own views. I look forward to our continued discussion.

Dan

Are the people that are fighting against hydro-fracing also fighting that hard against our contaminated food supply that is coming from the foreign countries? I don't think so....Please leave the decision up to the educated land owners. Most of us are just as interested in the land and the future as you are and are making informed decisions based on all the information that we have taken the time to learn. My grandchildren and great grandchildren depend on us taking the time to become informed and signing a lease that protects them as well as yours. We have researched the previous states of drilling and the consequences and read many articles by EXPERTS but, again, it is each EXPERTS interpretation of what they assume to be correct just as it is ours. EXPERTS still only put out there what is their opinion and interpretation no matter what the issue.

Dear Bonnie and James,
I believe that we are in agreement here about the concerns you express. James is looking at the big picture of energy independence from foreign sources, and points out that the future for the U.S. belongs to NG and Green energy. Bonnie is concerned about contamination of our food supply from foreign producers and has a focus on passing on the land to her grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Guys, I am in agreement with these concerns, and dearly want to address those issues that would interfere with those desires. Perhaps you read proposed solutions that might make it appear otherwise, but I assure you that our goals are the same if indeed I read you correctly. Perhaps our conversation needs now to focus on how best to accomplish what we all want.

Dan

Daniel, I think that we are seeing things a little differently. Strong environmental regulations already on the books in Pa (and being reviewed as we speak) create a business climate where it is most profitable for NG companies to produce gas without associated pollution. There are companies who think that they can cut corners in the short run to make the profit that you describe. These are the companies that strong regulations have to train and, if necessary, run out of business. I also believe that they are in the minority not majority.

Since I think we have good regulations in place (and probably getting tougher), I think we should allow drilling under these closely monitored conditions. I also have no problem supporting an increase in the number of monitors/inspectors watching over the industry.

Dear James & Gasman,
On a different site Marie has called our attention to a You-Tube presentation. I wonder if you saw it, and what you would think about it. It addresses what appears to be the fallacy of relying on government oversight to protect out interests.

Dear Marie,
You have done us all a wonderful service. Let me try to frame it for those first tuning in:
Marie has brought to our attention a conference held by some local folk, utilizing Duquesne University experts in different fields to inform the public about issues they have become aware of related to Marcellus Shale drilling. The first speaker was John F. Stolz, an environmental biologist, with much to share.

The overall presentations , there are 7 of them, is not a glitch free slick presentation, but they do go one into the other if you have the patience to click them through. There is much lost in poor video and poor chart work, and in going from one site to the next. Having said all that- you cannot afford to miss this. No axe to grind-just the facts as they occurred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjIG9PTZLTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6arAzJbymYw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGSVaY9JLcs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfJr1UGD-RI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmiePoWfjvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=002zWq4bUS0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cf…

Thanks again Marie.
Dan

Dear James,
Your last comment puzzles me. You're a passionate advocate for your position, that I can accept and indeed appreciate. You are not emptyheaded, yet your last response wasn't worthy of your intellect.
What can you possibly object to in the following quote? "But our goal is to make it possible to extract the gas in a way that doesn't damage the residents, their property or the environment and that preserves the rural character of Mount Pleasant." (Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10073/1042737-58.stm#ixzz0iBAy4Yi6)

Hey Dan,

James was being clever and tying his points together in a comedic way...At least that's how I took it.

Hey Marie,

If you live along a busy highway and hate the noise, what would you do? Move? We live less than 50 yards from a rail road. The beauty of our farm far out weighs the "industrial" noise of the railroad. We actually like watching the train-my young son loves the train. The traffic on that rail line is hauling chemicals to a local business that makes drilling "mud"....We are all supportive of the activity on a rail line that has been idle for many years.

I don't know how other counties are in the state, but Clearfield is always noted for having people that say NO to everything! Natural gas is just one more industry that no one wants. However, when a prison or whatever starts accepting applications, it's flooded with local applicants. Weird how that is....Hmmmm...

Marie, do you own a farm or live on a farm?

Marie,

Your situation will always be worse than anyone else's. The train usually causes a fire every summer when it's dry, but again, that's not as bad as what you are saying. NG is ruining everything--RUN FOREST, RUN!

Give me a break. How do you carry on with such stress and hatred in your life for everyone else's problems?

a working farm?

Marie,
Four gas wells have been drilled around my property - the noise wasn't bad at all. There are more wells being drilled right now and the noise doesn't seem to be bothering anyone in the area.
Sure, we had to listen to a helicopter all day while they were preparing for the seismic testing, but that wasn't even a big deal.
I agree with James - we are lucky to have so much NG in PA. I welcome the responsible drilling companies.

xxxxxx

Dear Molly,
What protective measures, if any, have you taken to monitor the water/air quality on your property?
Dan

I would like to know why if the gas industry is so sure that their procedures are so safe that the industry is so adverse to having their exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act removed . Currently the oil and gas industry is the ONLY industry that is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

I am not against gas exploration, but I am against the exploitation of the people of NE Penn. BuckinghamGasMan you are correct that there are many laws and regulations on the books that can be enforced, but there are two problems with that. 1. The laws are antiquated when it pertains to the type of drilling that is going on now in NE Penn. Production units are being increased to 1280 acres, they are drilling out 7,000 or more feet. The scenarios that are happening were never dreamed of when the current laws were enacted. 2. The fine fee schedule is a joke. The cost of a fine is considered a cost of doing business for these gas companies. We need higher fines to make more of an impact.

The DEP is not doing it’s job. Take Dimock, PA there was damage done there at least 6 months ago by a gas company and the problem has not be remedied yet. No definite as to when either. DEP spokesman on Friday night in Dimock said it will be done but when? Some residents of Dimock are being denied a Constitutional right to clean water. You can rest assured that if it was me that caused that damage I would have been prosecuted, fined and sent to jail. Why is the gas industry being treated differently?

Finally I do not like the people of NE Penn, myself included, being forced to assume risks they were not informed of. This information was part of a SEC prospectus for Range Resources in 2006. Range Resources explained to potential investors the risks of hydro-fracturing, something that is not being acknowledged let alone explained to the landowners and residents of Pennsylvania. There statement is as follows:
"Our business is subject to operating hazards and environmental regulations that could result in substantial losses or liabilities. Oil and natural gas operations are subject to many risks, including well blowouts, craterings, explosions, uncontrollable flows of oil, natural gas or well fluids, fires, formations with abnormal pressures, pipeline ruptures or spills, pollution, releases of toxic natural gas and other environmental hazards and risks. If any of these hazards occur, we could sustain substantial losses as a result of:
• Injury or loss of life;
• Severe damage to our destruction of property, natural resources and equipment;
• Pollution or other environmental damage;
• Clean-up responsibilities;
• Regulatory investigations and penalties; or
• Suspension of operations.
As we begin drilling to deeper horizons and in more geologically complex areas, we could experience a greater increase in operating and financial risks due to inherent higher reservoir pressures and unknown downhole risk exposures" (Range Resources "Prospectus" p. S-13 [5/18/06]).

From this statement it is clear that EOG felt compelled to inform the SEC, their shareholders, and potential shareholders of the risks of their business. Why are the people of this region being told a different story?

The industry needs to be MORE responsible, there are safer and cleaner methods that they could be using. Yes they cost more, but in the end the cost will be far less because they will be less likely to damage the environment. If the cost is too prohibitive for the companies then they need to spend more money on Research and Development before they make mistakes that either cannot be fixed or whose remedy is more costly than the safe method would have been to use.

Dear J & J,
It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Your comment to Marie "How do you carry on with such stress and hatred in your life for everyone else's problems?" is unworthy of you and impolite at the very least.

You have points to make-excellent, make them to bring light, not heat, into these deliberations.
Dan

Dear CJK,
You speak well, and have much to share. Thank you for your comments. If you'd like to focus on ways/suggestions to help remedy the potential dangers, perhaps a visit to Aquifer Contamination-Part 2 somewhere on this site might be worthwhile.
All good thoughts,
Dan

CJK, you said that "the oil and gas industry is the ONLY industry that is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act." That is not correct. For example, the fraccing fluids above ground are not exempt and deep well injections are not exempt. When those items were added to the actions covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act, they said it did not cover fraccing underground (because the belief was that it had no effect on drinking water). Fraccing was not taken out, it was never in. Underground fraccing was distinguished from fraccing fluids being handled on the surface -- again because there was no reason to believe that underground fraccing had any effect on drinking water. To date, that position has not been contradicted by any proof that fraccing actually causes drinking water pollution -- only fears that it may.

Daniel Cohen,
The water was tested before and after the drilling - no change. (I don't drink well water anyway.) My animals seem fine - dogs and horses have been drinking the water and they are all healthy. I have absolutely no concern about the gas wells affecting the water supply or the air. Besides, I hadn't really seen any clean water in the area before the gas wells were drilled. I don't know what area you are from, but our creeks and streams have been polluted for years from things other than gas wells.

If anyone thinks that a reputable gas company is worried about spending a few extra bucks they are wrong. The bad publicuty they receive when something goes wrong is far more of a burden to them than the extra spending they might incur in order to make additional safeguards common practice. If this isn't true of the company you are dealing with than you are dealing with a horrible company. Think about it. If Cabot had to do it all over again they would obviosuly do things differently. They have received terrible publicity and their reputation in the area is forever tarnished. I see other gas companies learning from them as well. Baseline water testing is becoming more common as well as post drilling water testing. It's too bad PA landowners didn't do their homework prior to signing such poor leases with regard to water and land protections. CIK. The operational hazards you list below are true... But, that doesn't mean NG exploration and hydrofracking is any more dangerous to us or the environment than many things we are subject to on a daily basis. We could put a list of hazards together for hundres of things. By and large and by an overwhelming margin the number of environmental detriments we have seen in the state is miniscule compared to the number of wells and the amount of hydro-fracking that has already been completed with no incident. People tend to grasp on to what the media puts out there. It should be heard, yes. But we should make decisions and conclusions regarding anything we do based on big picture thinking. How many car accidents will be on the news tonight ? There will be several and they will involve many serious injuries and deaths. How many people will safely commute to work and back home today ? Hundreds of thousands and not one safe commute will make the news. How many wells have been drilled with no incidents ? How many good reports have we seen showing the details of how succesfull the gas companies have been and how overwhelming safe they have been ? None... It's easy to fall prey to misinformation when all we hear about is the negative. Get smart and think globally and with logic. You will find yourself makeing better decisions in the long run.

Dear Molly,
That's wonderful to hear. Sorry about the general quality of your well water though. We've been drinking ours for over 40 years and are satisfied as to the quality & purity. What kinds of water analysis
was done pre & post on your sources, and who did you use to do it? I've seen price estimates from $50-$2,000 for a sample!! May I ask what range you paid?
Thanks.
Dan

Dear Gasman,
Perhaps you're missing the point of CJK's remarks. Isn't he making the point that there is an unregulated activity that can produce serious results, and by implication that suggests the need for us as landowners to be ever vigilant-that we can not rely upon government rules/regulations to protect ourselves. We need to be our own watchdogs. Or have I missed the point?
Dan

Dear Gasman,
A last remark-in your response to CJK you point out that "there was no reason to believe that underground fraccing had any effect on drinking water." That was from the general assumption that the rock layers between the drill play and the aquifer layer we impermeable and would tend to shield the aquifer from upwards migration. That position is no longer held by the hydro-geologists that I have heard on this point. The current thinking is that there are micro fissures/cracks throughout, and that there is no impermeable layer. There is also a recognition of numerous natural fault lines passing through many layers, top to bottom.
Dan

Dear John,
Shouldn't our focus now be on the ways to best protect ourselves? I of course agree with your point about the need to do one's homework, but in defense of those who didn't they were often operating on the model of being a good neighbor rather than a defensive position against vested interests. That said, can we come up with procedures that can serve us all, so that the value of the drilling can be obtained without the negative downsides?
Dan

Dan, I did not miss the point that CJK made about the "Halliburton exemption" and tried to point out that I think it is incorrect.

I have not heard hydro-geologists sayng that fissures will bring this fluid up into the aquifers used for drinking water. I have heard State and Federal agencies atate that there has been no substantiated instances of fraccing water contaminating water supplies. Have you not heard them or do you choose to believe others?

I've listed many ways to protect ourselves. 1.Baseline water testing. 2. Post drilling water testing. 3. Talk with your neighbors regularly. 4. Educated them as you become educated. 4. Join a non profit land owner group or attend meetings. 5. Don't fall prey to inconclusive rhetoric. 6. Apply logic to your thinking. 7. When you have a concern investigate it without first arriving at a negative conclusion. 8. Address concerns with your representives. 9. Before signing anything visit NG wells that the CO has already completed. 10. Before signing anything ensure you have adequate protections in place for your land and water. 11. Listen to everyone but let your own voice and logical thinking be the voice of reason.

Dear John,
Beautifully done-wise and to the point.
Thank you.
Dan

Dear Gasman,
For us, it's not a question of 'belief or not' but rather of facts. Let's keep our eyes/ears open to see if we can get more info on the migrating of frac fluids. To date, my limited info indicates that they do migrate, and can permeate aquifers. That conclusion was apparently behind the N.Y.State decision to halt the proposed practice, and it is still on hold as far as I know.
Dan

Dear Carolyn,
You've encapsulated the issue and highlighted the dangers very succinctly. Now to address them to safeguard ourselves, our property, and our environment.
Dan