Penn Land Owners

I am cautious, not pessimistic. Why are you so trusting? I have seen way too much greed and corruption politically when it comes to big corporations, especially gas and oil industries. There is a huge difference in risks in driving a car and risks in not having water, I can live without driving I can't survive without water. Already signed thought I got a good lease with amendments and all. I did research it but I have learned alot since then. Live in Bradford County. Talking about you buying the land after the destruction is done. My feeling is that the land will not be worth much that is what I was trying to imply. Not ready to sell land that I have worked hard on stewarding.Our water supply consists of drilled wells, springs, creeks and other ground water.

From Robert Howarth, Professor Environmental Biology at Cornell University: ; re gas drilling. natural gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas with 72 times more potential for climate warming than oil.

Natural gas is mostly methane. I'll give the author that much. What he fails to say is that if used as an energy source it needs to be burned. The byproducts of burning natural gas as an energy source compared to coal and oil are far less invasive to the environment and the atmosphere in general. Natural gas burns 30% cleaner than oil and 50% cleaner than coal.

Hey John,

Lol!! Stop using common sense or reality! LOL!! These people don't care about the facts. They will make up stuff to support their cause--thank you for calling them out on their BS....

Keep up the good work Marie and Carolyn! You guys are great! LOL!!

The point that one needs to understand is that the process of extractng the gas needs to be taken into consideration. This is the key point that is never addressed "I estimate that extraction, transport and combustion of Marcellus gas — together with leakage of methane — makes this gas at least 60 percent more damaging for greenhouse warming than crude oil and similar in impact to coal. " The whole picture needs to be discussed and considered also he is talking about the leakage of methane that occurs with the extraction process. This is huge and is not discussed. This is the whole article:
HYPERLINK "http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20100328/VIEWPOINTS/3280320/" http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20100328/VIEWPOINTS/3280320/ Gas and drilling not clean choices
Environmental risks too great; alternative fuels a better option
Robert Howarth
March 28, 2010 Natural gas is marketed as a clean fuel with less impact on global warming than oil or coal, a transitional fuel to replace other fossil fuels until some distant future with renewable energy. Some argue that we have an obligation to develop Marcellus Shale gas, despite environmental concerns. I strongly disagree. Natural gas as a clean fuel is a myth. While less carbon dioxide is emitted from burning natural gas than oil or coal, emissions during combustion are only part of the concern. Natural gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas with 72 times more potential than carbon dioxide to warm our planet (per molecule, averaged over the 20 years following emission). I estimate that extraction, transport and combustion of Marcellus gas — together with leakage of methane — makes this gas at least 60 percent more damaging for greenhouse warming than crude oil and similar in impact to coal. The most recent method of hydro-fracking is relatively new technology, massive in scope and far from clean in ways beyond greenhouse gas emissions. The landscape could be dotted with thousands of drilling pads, spaced as closely as one every 40 acres. Compacted gravel would cover three to five acres for each. New pipelines and access roads crisscrossing the landscape would connect the pads. Ten or more wells per pad are expected. Every time a well is “fracked,” 1,200 truck trips will carry the needed water. Drillers will inject several million gallons of water and tens of thousands of pounds of chemicals into each well. Some of this mixture will stay deep in the shale, but cumulatively, billions of gallons of waste fluids will surface. Under current law, drillers can use absolutely any chemical additive or waste, with no restrictions and no disclosure. Recent experience in Pennsylvania indicates regular use of toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic substances. Out of 24 wells sampled there, flow-back wastes from every one contained high levels of 4-Nitroquinoline-1-oxide (according to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation). It is one of the most mutagenic compounds known. Flow-back wastes also contain toxic metals and high levels of radioactivity extracted from the shale, in addition to the materials used by drillers. Industry tells us that surface and groundwater contamination is unlikely, since gas is deep in the ground and drilling operations are designed to minimize leakage. Nonsense. The technology is new and understudied, but early evidence shows high levels of contamination in some drinking water wells and rivers in other states. Accidents happen, and well casings and cementing can fail. The geology of our region is complex, and water and materials under high pressure can move quickly to aquifers, rivers and lakes along fissures and fractures. Flow-back waters and associated chemical and radioactive wastes must be handled and stored at the surface, some in open pits and ponds unless government regulation prevents this. What will keep birds and wildlife away from it? What happens downstream if a heavy rain causes the toxic soup to overflow the dam? What happens to these wastes? Adequate treatment technologies and facilities do not exist. What about government regulation and oversight? The DEC is understaffed, underfunded and has no history with the scale and scope of exploitation now envisioned. Federal oversight is almost completely gone, due to Congress exempting gas development from most environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, in 2005. We can be independent of fossil fuels within 20 years and rely on renewable green technologies, such as wind and solar. The constraints on this are mostly political, not technical. We do not need to sacrifice a healthy environment to industrial gas development. Rather, we need to mobilize and have our region provide some badly needed national leadership toward a sustainable energy future. Robert Howarth is the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University. An internationally known expert on environmental issues and water quality, he has worked on the consequences of oil and gas development for more than 30 years. The viewpoint is his own and should not be construed as a position of Cornell University.

Marie,

Where have you read about all of these dead horses and cattle? Do you have any links to the articles?

The pits (ponds) are supposed to only be fresh water but no one is enforcing that. I can't even build a pond on my property without a permit gas companies can build pits and add wastewater to it with DEP approval:

"Drill site spill subject of investigation"
Robert L. Baker, Susquehanna County Independent
Published: March 24, 2010
http://www.independentweekender.com/news/drill-site-spill-subject-o...
The Department of Environmental Protection is investigating a spill at a gas drilling site just south of the village of Dimock.

Mark Carmon, DEP spokesman at the Wilkes-Barre office said that his agency was notified that a discolored liquid of unknown composition was leaking from a catch basin from a Cabot Oil & Gas site identified as Hibbard, along Pa Rt. 29.
He said Tuesday morning that a vacuum truck was taking up the liquid since Sunday afternoon, and that inspectors from DEP had been on the premises Monday and would return possibly late yesterday afternoon.
Carmon said the liquid was apparently coming from an on-site wastewater pit whose plastic liner may have developed a leak.
“We want to get a idea of exactly what it is we’re dealing with,” Carmon said, but acknowledged conclusive samples were not yet available Tuesday morning.
Carmon said the site had been drilled, fracking was complete, and the entire pit possibly would need to be drained.
He noted that it was too early to tell what charges might be pending against Cabot or one of its subcontractors and probably wouldn’t know until the entire wastewater pit was drained.
Susquehanna County EMA director Charlene Moser expressed concern that as of Monday morning neither Cabot nor DEP had informed her office of a problem. She said that if her agency doesn’t already know about a spill, it is typically notified by DEP as a courtesy.

CJK, I received your message. Here is what I know. There are several stages involved in gas and oil maturation. The shale in question has a maturity level that is determined by several factors. Two of the big factors are depth and temperature at which the shale has been exposed. Out in the western part of PA you will find both oil and natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation, where as here in NE PA you will find natural gas only. This is because the temperature at which the organic material that is the Marcellus formation in Western PA was condusive to what is needed in order for oil to form. In other word Kerogen + Heat > 50 degrees celcius converts to bitumen, bitumen + heat equals > 100 degrees celcius through about 200 degrees celcius equals petroleum. The closer to 100 degrees ceclius the lighter the oil and the closer to 200 degrees the heavier the oil. The molecular structures are broken down and converted to light oil and heavy oil. At temperatures above 200 degrees celcius through 250 or 260 degrees celcius is the natural gas window. The closer to 200 degrees the wetter the gas and the close to 250 degrees the dryer the gas. Methane is the byproduct of thermal maturity of Marcellus shale subjected to temperatures above 250 degrees celcius. The byproduct of methane (thermally overmature) subjected to temperatures beyond the dry gas limit window is C02.

Since methane has a simpler chemical makeup than oil I don't see how it is possible that it is more harmful to the environment than oil.

Also, I've attened several informational presentations conducted by none other than the godfather of Marcellus Shale Dr Terry Engelder. Professor of Geo Sciences for Penn State University. Most of my knowledge regarding thermal maturity comes drectly from him. he is arguably the most educated human on Earth with regard to Marcellus Shale. I trust his opinions over anyones.

If you are interested I have several slideshow presentations I can email to you in order to help educate you on this stuff.

John: You sound very knowledgable about natural gas extraction. Where did you get your information from?
What I am referring to is the methane that escapes while extracting the natural gas.
in addition: Have you ever visited a well pad site that had a separator and compressor on it? These sites have a fumes and odors and after effects that have not been accounted for. Every pad I have visited that have had compressors and seperators on them, have caused me to have severe headaches and sickness after being there for only one to three hours. What possible effect could numerous pad sites have on the air quality of the region? No one has adressed this issue yet. Can you answer that?

As far as Dr Terry Engelder goes, I agree that he is a very knowledgable man, but Penn State has been bought out by the gas industry so anything that comes out of Penn State is suspect. They had 17 million dollars donated to them by the gas companies so we know where their allegiance will be because of that donation. Less than 3 years ago Penn State officials were stating that it was not advisable to hydrofrac in the PA geology until further study but now that they have money donated to them the have changed their tune.
Look at Penn State work prior to their donation. While facts are facts anyone can change statisitcs to benefit an outcome. There is no arguing that Penn State changed their position on hydrofracking after their donation,one directly correlates with the other.

Every presentation I attended was informative. Dr Engelder did not always deliver the news that landowners wanted to hear. His presentations are from a geology perspective. Pros and cons of certain areas with regard to its geology. If you do your own research you will find his presentation information to be spot on. In addition, it's common knowledge. To say that the information he has given to me and to the general public regarding geology is a direct result of contributions made to PSU from O/G companies is simply not accurate. Again, I have several of his presentations in slide show formar if you are interested. He gives no indication that he is persuaded by the dollar. If any credible geologist caught him lying or bending the truth his credibility would be shot.

Oh, I forgot about this. What about the methane that escapes as a result of coal mining ? Mr. Howarth failed to include this into his mathematical calulations when determining natural gas is equivalent to coal. Did you happen to see the news the last few days ? What is it, 24 miners dead in WV after a methane explosion? Wouldn't you think coal mining causes a far greater risk of methane escaping into the atmosphere?

Interesting that you mention the coal miners, John.
For what reason do all the obstructionists ignore the environmental damage of coal mining and the clearly deadly work of mining? I never hear ProPublica railing about coal mining, and I don't see swarms of anti-everything people demonstrating at the mines.
Doesn't anyone care about coal miners? Or the effects of mining?

Dear John and rfs,
Your point about the recent mining tragedy in West Virginia is right on target.CJK is pointing out that the industry there needed to be held to safety standards, that the mining company involved was in violation up the kazoo, and elected to put their workers and the environment at risk to increase their profit margin. CJK rightly points out that we all need to be on our guard to require the industry (in our case Gas) to be responsible and to hold them to comply with all regulations. What are you guys disputing? In previous posts you both have agreed with that basic position. Are you now taking a different position, or have I missed something here?
Dan

Daniel, I am disputing that natural gas drilling will contribute to global warming at the same rate as coal and/or oil. I thought I made that pretty clear. I am also disputing that Dr Engelder has been swayed by the oil and gas industry and that his research is suspect. I thought I made that clear as well.

John:

I never said Dr. Engelder's research was suspect. I said facts are facts, what is uspect is his opinions and interpretations regarding his research. There are alot of assumptions happening with regard to the outcome of all this drilling. By the way I did watch one of Dr Engelder's videos and interestingly enough he said that a horizontal well will be fractured two, three, maybe even four times, to stimulate production, during the life of the well, So you are not only talking about the initial disturbance of both the land and the subsurface but possibly four more times of having the equipment on your land, at different intervals, injecting fluids into the ground over and over again. Do the gas company have to get your water tested every time they frac or just when they do the initial drilling? There may be quite a bit of time between frac jobs and the industry will use that time to their advantage to argue any damage that might be done while refracing.

As far as Dr Terry Engelder goes, I agree that he is a very knowledgable man, but Penn State has been bought out by the gas industry so anything that comes out of Penn State is suspect.

Direct quote from your earlier post.

Most wells will be fracked twice. There will be exceptions, but for the most part twice. If I sign a lease it wil be mandated that water testing be done prior to any fracking as well as after fracking at multiple intervals. Again, I have the power to make this happen. If they do not agree to this lease condition, I don't sign. We all have the same choice. Also, as a landowner you can have a surface disturbance addendum in your lease agreement that mandates the company to clean up and restore the land. I will also have this in my lease agreement or I won't sign it.

Methane is ubiquitous in coal mines. The gas, like coal, is a molecule made of hydrogen and carbon, and it is produced from the same raw material as coal, ancient piles of biological material, by the same processes. Much of the natural gas sold in the United States is drawn from coal seams. In undisturbed coal deposits, the methane is kept loosely attached to the coal molecules by compression; when the area is opened up by miners, the pressure is reduced and the methane bubbles out [The New York Times].

I maintain that anything that comes out of Penn State is suspect. Penn State has known about this natural gas play for quite a long time, at least back in 2001 and they did virtually nothing prior to 2008-09 to assist the landowner, most of their help was to further the industries needs and not the landowner. Of late they have come forward, when it was too late for many. Regardless of someone's research when you work for an organization such as Penn State you follow their agenda or you do not have a job. Sad reality many people face and follow.

Dear John,
You wrote"Daniel, I am disputing that natural gas drilling will contribute to global warming at the same rate as coal and/or oil." "I am also disputing that Dr Engelder has been swayed by the oil and gas industry and that his research is suspect."

Both nice points, both clearly stated and both besides the point. Focus John- the issue is the need to protect ourselves from inadvertent mishaps, poor procedures and carelessness on the part of the Gas companies which can negatively impact our environment and personal health. What don't you get?
Dan

Dear Dan. What don't you get ? I never said we didn't need to protect ouselves. As a matter of fact I have been quite clear that we do need protections.

My points were in response to a post that stated natural gas exploration is as detrimental to the environment as coal are more detrimental than oil. Also, it was in response to a post stating anything that comes out of PSU is suspect. How are my responses besides the point ? Thet are direct responses to a post ?

There are two or three fanatics on this site that are blowing things way out of proportion. When you start listening to people who say natural gas exploration is as detrimental or more detrimental to the environment as coal and/or oil, then you have become one of those fanatics. Basic common sense sees right through these people.
Most are also hipocrits. If they really believed in slowing global warming they would become vegetarians. After all, they're dairy and meat cattle supply 14% of the US contribution of methane to the atmosphere. They also fail to mention this. Why, because they have a vested interest so they ignore this part. Although they will not admit it, but they have one common goal. That goal is to halt natural gas exploration in PA, not to ensure that it is a safe practice. I see the rhetoric being tossed around on this site by a few individuals. Blatent half thruths and scare tactics. They are trying to influence the landowners to see things their way and they don't care how many lies of half truths they tell to get their misguided points accross.

I'm all for protcting our land and water as stated several times in previous posts. But do not insult my intelligence by by posting nonsense rubbish that only a newbie would fall for.

This is the kind of oversight we currently have in our state. Beware the State and Federal Agencies are not in the business of protecting our interests.:
"Residents reported gas odors before explosion"

Thursday, April 01, 2010

By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10091/1047159-58.stm#ixzz0kQuRB3NB
The Atlas well burns on Wednesday.

Property owners living near the site of a gas well operation that caught fire in Washington County Wednesday morning said they had been trying for days to reach state officials about noxious odors at the site.

George Zimmerman, who owns the property where an Atlas Energy wastewater impoundment pond caught fire on Wednesday, and neighbor Kyle Lengauer, said they experienced a "horrendous gas smell" in the days leading up to the fire, but they couldn't reach state officials to warn them.

"We actually left our house on Sunday because the fumes were so bad and we were so nauseated," said Mr. Lengauer, whose lives with his wife and two children on property that abuts Mr. Zimmerman's 480 acres in rural Hopewell .

Both men said they heard a loud explosion at about 8 a.m. Wednesday and saw an impoundment pond on fire with clouds of black smoke.

"I saw about a 100-foot flame -- you could see it seven miles away," said Mr. Zimmerman, who is embroiled in a lawsuit he filed against Moon-based Atlas Energy last year, alleging that the company "ruined his land with toxic chemicals," such as arsenic and benzene, used in hydraulic gas well fracturing.

Mr. Lengauer said he contacted a hotline for the state Department of Environmental Resources on Sunday, but was unable to reach agency officials because their voicemail boxes were full.

"I tried to call them for three days straight," said Mr. Lengauer.

The man-made, rubber-lined impoundments are used to collect wastewater that's produced from hydraulic fracturing of gas wells. Water, chemicals and sand are used in the fracturing process, which releases natural gas.

DEP spokeswoman Helen Humphries said a preliminary investigation indicated that gas on the surface of the wastewater may have ignited the 100-by-80-foot impoundment and nearby equipment.

Washington County Public Safety Director Jeff Yates said the county's hazardous materials team responded to the site and used foam to extinguish a fire at a holding tank that is used to separate water and sand near the impoundment. The impoundment's rubber liner was allowed to burn out on its own, he said.

Atlas Energy, which denies the claims made in Mr. Zimmerman's lawsuit, said in a statement on Wednesday that it would work to find the cause of the fire, which resulted in minor slip-and-fall injury to a contractor.

"We take this situation very seriously, and we are working with local and state officials to determine the cause of the fire and any potential impacts," said Jeffrey Kupfer, Atlas Energy's senior vice president. "We anticipate the resumption of normal operations in the near future."

Earlier this year, the DEP fined Atlas Energy $85,000 for failing to control erosion and runoff at six well sites and for not properly discharging waste products.

Dear John,
When you say "I'm all for protecting our land and water as stated several times in previous posts", we are in agreement. You also have stated several protective measures that you personally would follow, and recommend that others follow as well. Again, we are in agreement.

Our point of departure occurs when you focus on tangential side issues, and academic points of question. To engage in a tit for tat on posts that are related but off the main point is curious- you're too bright and well informed for that, yet you jump right in. The end result is to dilute your recommendations for protection in favor of academic debate.

I say again, you need to focus. Use that good intellect to help strengthen local efforts to protect our environment, health and property values. Help those of us who are trying to do that to do a better job. Shouldn't the emphasis be on landowner groups forming, topics to be explored, helpful hints/suggestions on how to help the landowner and the gas companies to have a better partnership in a an adventure that brings the potential for economic recovery and energy independence? That is where you many talents could serve a most useful purpose. Or am I wrong?
Dan

Everything you are stating is pretty accurate. However, when I feel misinformation is being posted I feel I have a responsibility to everyone involved in this to set the record straight.

You should be having this conversation with the anti drilling people. They don't seem to be open to talking about ways to mkae things better. It is my opinion they are out to completely tarnish and abolish drilling period. What they write gives me no indication their motives are to the contrary.

Below is a response from Dr Terry Engelder to an email I sent to him yesterday afternoon. He was very kind to respond. It's interesting he mentions the life of methane is far less than tha of C02. This is not factored in to Howarths caclulations either.


John:

Howarth is not an expert on the Marcellus and is, in fact, quite disingenuous.



Let me take on just one of his statements! Howarth states, “Natural gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas with 72 times more potential than carbon dioxide to warm our planet (per molecule, averaged over the 20 years following emission). I estimate that extraction, transport and combustion of Marcellus gas — together with leakage of methane — makes this gas at least 60 percent more damaging for greenhouse warming than crude oil and similar in impact to coal.” Let’s assume he is referring to just to replacing oil and coal by gas equivalences from the Marcellus.



Global warming potential GWP of methane is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance (CH4) relative to that of 1 kg of CO2. This definition comes from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a gas has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth –atmosphere system. As the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the ratio of incoming to outgoing energy increases. The same amount of CH4 has a much larger effect which is implied by Howarth’s statement. What Howarth does not tell the reader is that methane is easily oxidized in the atmosphere and has a half life of only 7 years. CO2 is very stable in the atmosphere once it is released. This is why the atmosphere is Venus is mainly CO2.



Because of the oxidation of CH4 in the Earth’s atmosphere, methane’s GWP drops rapidly from 72 times CO2 after 20 years to 21 times after 100 years CO2. In fact, it is this rapid decay that will limit the amount of methane in the Earth’s atmosphere to a few parts per million under the present rate of gas production in the world. Note that the concentration of CO2 is presently about 400 parts per million (ppm) and this will continue to climb because it is NOT being systematically removed at the rate of CH4 removal by oxidization. What this means is the CO2 is presently king in terms of radiative forcing and its influence will continue to grow.



Here is the kicker! According to DOE EIA, the US uses about 25 trillion cubic feet of methane per year (25 Tcf/yr). Converting to mass this is 552 Tg/y (teragrams/year). According to US EPA figures, the methane production industry releases 104 TgCO2 Eq. The US EPA uses the 100 year equivalence between CO2 and CH4 (not the 20 year equivalence used by Howarth) which was calculated to be 21 within the IPCC 2nd Assessment Report. So, methane emission by the gas industry is 4.9 Tg/y which means that 0.9% of all methane produced gets into the atmosphere. Note also that total methane emission is just above 578 TgCO2 Eq which means that gas production is responsible for 18% of all methane fed to the atmosphere by the USA. Obviously, these numbers are larger if this tranche of methane is tracked for a shorter period. It should be noted that methane production by the USA has stabilized over the past several years and the measured concentration of methane in the atmosphere has not increased because of its short half life. Presumably it has stabilized by somewhat less than 2 ppm.



Suppose that all coal fired power plants were converted to methane power plants tomorrow. The USA uses about 25 Quads (quadrillion BTU) annually from both coal and natural gas. Coal production would stop and natural gas production would double. Methane emits half the CO2 as coal on a BTU basis. Presently coal releases 2,000 TgCO2 Eq. Burning CH4 would release 1000 TgCO2 Eq for a net savings of 1000 TgCO2 Eq. At the same time, this additional methane production would release 104 TgCO2 Eq worth of methane emissions. The USA emits about 5800 Tg in CO2. A complete conversion from coal to natural gas saves the USA about 900 Tg or roughly 15% in greenhouse gas emissions. Converting vehicles to natural gas would save an additional 15% in CO2 loading. This is calculated using the US EPA standard of a 100 year oxidation period for CH4.



I don’t have any idea what Howarth means when he says that Marcellus methane is as damaging as coal but to my way of thinking he is clearly out to foil Marcellus production for reasons that he does not make clear!



Terry







Terry Engelder

Professor of Geosciences

Department of Geosciences

334 A Deike Building

The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802



Phone: 814-865-3620



From: John [mailto:nightrgr@ptd.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:56 PM
To: Terry Engelder
Subject: Re: Marcellus



Good afternoon Dr Engelder,



I know you are very busy but I have a question about natural gas that I would really like answered. There are many people out there who are trying to stop natural gas exploration and attempting to scare land owners into believing half truths at best. Can you read the first few sentences below and let me know your opinion ? Basically the writer of the text below is saying overall natural gas consumption with extraction factored in, is as detrimental to the environment as coal. Please, please let me know what you think.



Thanks for any guidance.



John Reed









The point that one needs to understand is that the process of extractng the gas needs to be taken into consideration. This is the key point that is never addressed "I estimate that extraction, transport and combustion of Marcellus gas — together with leakage of methane — makes this gas at least 60 percent more damaging for greenhouse warming than crude oil and similar in impact to coal. " The whole picture needs to be discussed and considered also he is talking about the leakage of methane that occurs with the extraction process. This is huge and is not discussed. This is the whole article:
HYPERLINK "http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20100328/VIEWPOINTS/3280320/" http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20100328/VIEWPOINTS/3280320/ Gas and drilling not clean choices
Environmental risks too great; alternative fuels a better option
Robert Howarth
March 28, 2010 Natural gas is marketed as a clean fuel with less impact on global warming than oil or coal, a transitional fuel to replace other fossil fuels until some distant future with renewable energy. Some argue that we have an obligation to develop Marcellus Shale gas, despite environmental concerns. I strongly disagree. Natural gas as a clean fuel is a myth. While less carbon dioxide is emitted from burning natural gas than oil or coal, emissions during combustion are only part of the concern. Natural gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas with 72 times more potential than carbon dioxide to warm our planet (per molecule, averaged over the 20 years following emission). I estimate that extraction, transport and combustion of Marcellus gas — together with leakage of methane — makes this gas at least 60 percent more damaging for greenhouse warming than crude oil and similar in impact to coal. The most recent method of hydro-fracking is relatively new technology, massive in scope and far from clean in ways beyond greenhouse gas emissions. The landscape could be dotted with thousands of drilling pads, spaced as closely as one every 40 acres. Compacted gravel would cover three to five acres for each. New pipelines and access roads crisscrossing the landscape would connect the pads. Ten or more wells per pad are expected. Every time a well is “fracked,” 1,200 truck trips will carry the needed water. Drillers will inject several million gallons of water and tens of thousands of pounds of chemicals into each well. Some of this mixture will stay deep in the shale, but cumulatively, billions of gallons of waste fluids will surface. Under current law, drillers can use absolutely any chemical additive or waste, with no restrictions and no disclosure. Recent experience in Pennsylvania indicates regular use of toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic substances. Out of 24 wells sampled there, flow-back wastes from every one contained high levels of 4-Nitroquinoline-1-oxide (according to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation). It is one of the most mutagenic compounds known. Flow-back wastes also contain toxic metals and high levels of radioactivity extracted from the shale, in addition to the materials used by drillers. Industry tells us that surface and groundwater contamination is unlikely, since gas is deep in the ground and drilling operations are designed to minimize leakage. Nonsense. The technology is new and understudied, but early evidence shows high levels of contamination in some drinking water wells and rivers in other states. Accidents happen, and well casings and cementing can fail. The geology of our region is complex, and water and materials under high pressure can move quickly to aquifers, rivers and lakes along fissures and fractures. Flow-back waters and associated chemical and radioactive wastes must be handled and stored at the surface, some in open pits and ponds unless government regulation prevents this. What will keep birds and wildlife away from it? What happens downstream if a heavy rain causes the toxic soup to overflow the dam? What happens to these wastes? Adequate treatment technologies and facilities do not exist. What about government regulation and oversight? The DEC is understaffed, underfunded and has no history with the scale and scope of exploitation now envisioned. Federal oversight is almost completely gone, due to Congress exempting gas development from most environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, in 2005. We can be independent of fossil fuels within 20 years and rely on renewable green technologies, such as wind and solar. The constraints on this are mostly political, not technical. We do not need to sacrifice a healthy environment to industrial gas development. Rather, we need to mobilize and have our region provide some badly needed national leadership toward a sustainable energy future. Robert Howarth is the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University. An internationally known expert on environmental issues and water quality, he has worked on the consequences of oil and gas development for more than 30 years. The viewpoint is his own and should not be construed as a position of Cornell University.

Dear John,
Very interesting stuff, and many thanks for pursuing it to the right source. Dr. Engelder was indeed kind to respond as he did. Apparently there is an academic difference of opinion between Engelder and Howarth, but we need not get bogged down with that.

Our path, yours & mine, is perhaps better spent in addressing your following comments:
"You should be having this conversation with the anti drilling people. They don't seem to be open to talking about ways to make things better. It is my opinion they are out to completely tarnish and abolish drilling period. What they write gives me no indication their motives are to the contrary. "

I can see why one might think that, but I attribute it to fear of the unknown rather than a desire to abolish something entirely. That's why we (you & I) need to shed as much light upon this as possible, and to avoid the heat that might come along with it.

You have helped considerably in bringing light to the conversation, now to address the fears/concerns that are being expressed by the anti drilling group. I believe that we are in agreement about the need to be vigilant, to protect ourselves/property/health and to try to partner up with the O & G folk to make it a win/win situation for all.

I believe we also agree that economic interests being what they are, we can't expect the O & G companies not to try to cut corners and to increase their potential profits without primary regard for the landowner. That the landowner should look out for himself just as the O & G folk are looking out for their own bottom line.

If the above is more or less where we're both at, then we need to put together the kind of protections to answer the anti drilling groups concerns. I believe that if we can do that, there will not be the opposition that currently exists.

I suspect that much of your earlier comments/posts dealing with the need to form landowner groups, have good legal representation, have many addendums to the standard lease and how to approach water issues all make for exactly the needed approach to protect us all.

If we're in agreement here, let's work on putting together a recommended list/approach for landowner groups to consider- of course it would only be a start, and a rough outline at that, but the direction would be correct don't you think?
Dan

I am more than willing to contribute. But I will not work with a few individuals who are dedicated to scaring people. If I can contribute in any way let me know. I'll wait for your direction. Whatever we come up with needs to be logical and factual.

John:
Am I one of the people that you are not willing to work with? I will supply you with logical and factual information. DId you see the article I posted earlier about the fire in the wastewater ponds. What is your position about these frac ponds the companies are allowed to set up? Some are setting up as many as three ponds per pad so that they can keep below the minimum acreage for when regulation steps in? You talk about the surface issues being the most problematic, what can we do about that, shouldn't the gas companies be required to stop this practice?

Dear All,
John & I are trying to put together a broad outline for landowner groups to consider in order to protect themselves, the environment,their property values and their health. Please feel free to jump in and add/question anything & everything. The focus here is to try to accomplish a partnering with the O & G companies. We can hope for the best, but let's prepare for the worst.

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!

What do you think, have we begun to put together anything of value for us all yet, or are we still too common sense focused without anything new?
Dan

No, you seem to show balance. I would be willing to work with you.

I would never sign a lease that allows a frac pond on my property. None of us have to. I've stated before deep well injection is being looked into. Also, waster water disposal through transportation to a treatment facility is a better option in my mind. Both of these options still pose risks but I believe less than a frac pond. Frac ponds give the gas co's the easy and most economical way out. It's all in the lease agreement.

It's a good start. I like common sense. Using it is the best road.

There is one in Hanover Township. They treated frack water a couple of months ago. This is a very poulated area. I used to live right next to this place. In the summer the smell was terrible. They mentioned no ill effects of processing the frack waste and guess what ? Nobody got sick or died lol. I'll do some reseacrh and see if I can find the article. I read it a month or so ago. Also, I'll create a listing of facilities who can potentially handle the frack waste.

Marie, what are these facilities in Williamsport and Sunbury ?


WVSA sees profit in treating drill water
By Rory Sweeney rsweeney@timesleader.com
Staff Writer


The Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority is looking to join the ranks of regional sewer authorities profiting from natural gas drilling.


Read more Natural Gas Leases - Marcellus Shale articles


Following Williamsport and Sunbury, where authorities are already treating drilling wastewater, the WVSA is requesting proposals to build a closed-loop pretreatment plant on its land in Hanover Township.

The plant would accept wastewater only within certain pollution parameters, and the treated water would need to be reused for other gas drilling.

Proposals are due by March 29, and the authority hopes to have the plant built within a year, pending necessary permitting.

“I think this thing can get built in seven, eight, nine months or quicker, so again, when will it be permitted?” said John Minora, president of PA NE Aqua Resources, which is consulting on the project.

The plant would be able to treat 800 gallons a minute with a daily flow of 1 million gallons, plus storage and a filling station. The system could utilize any of several techniques that could include separation and disposal of waste in a landfill, evaporation and land application of the minerals or treatment and dilution, Minora said.

Dilution would require the same amount of water, plus about 10 percent more, he said, which would come from the plant’s treated sewage water.

Removing the solids and chemicals is easy, he said, but extracting the dissolved salts is not, which is why dilution might be the most economical option.

“Honestly, we’re open,” he said. “We’ll consider any system that does that job.”

Unlike at Williamsport or Sunbury, however, the resulting Hanover Township water won’t be sent to the existing treatment facility and would need to be purchased by gas companies for use in drilling.

“We want a system that isn’t going to discharge (into a waterway, such as the Susquehanna River), whether or not there’s a byproduct we have to dispose of in another fashion,” he said.

There is an old rail spur at the site that could be reconditioned. Rail is the preferred transportation method, he said, because it’s faster and less disturbing to the community. However, a trucking route is being considered utilizing a second entrance that passes only a few homes, he said.

That route requires the rebuilding of a washed-out bridge.

“We’ve looked at some alternatives, where really the impact on the neighborhood is minimal,” he said.

All proposals require a bid bond of 10 percent of the total bid. Minora declined to offer an estimated cost.

Daniel, do you see what I mean ? Marie is dead set against drilling period. No matter what you say she will absolutely 100% disagree. I bet she is continuing to dump cleaning sollutions down her drains at home polluting the aquifiers. She is probably burning her oil boiler or furnace on cold nights this spring, or burning coal or worse yet firewood.

Marie,
A treatment plant is also opening in Westmoreland County at the site of the former American Video Glass Company.

By Rory Sweeney rsweeney@timesleader.com
Staff Writer


The Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority is investigating the feasibility of treating wastewater created from natural-gas drilling.


Read more Natural Gas Leases - Marcellus Shale articles


It hopes to offset some cost increases the authority will soon incur to make pollution-reducing renovations.

The authority published a request for proposals earlier this week, seeking bidders who could supply at least 500,000 gallons of wastewater daily for at least three years and pay at least 5.5 cents per gallon. Using both minimums, that would create daily revenue of $27,500.

Drilling for gas in the Marcellus Shale creates millions of gallons of wastewater that must be treated.

“The good part of that is that, instead of paying for fresh water from the Susquehanna (River), we would pre-treat this and they would reuse that to fracture new wells,” said Fred DeSanto, the authority’s executive director. “We know drilling’s going on; we are a wastewater treatment facility. That’s our business to treat it. We just don’t want time to go by as there’s water to treat.”

That means that, for now, the plant is seeking a permit from the state Department of Environmental Protection to treat up to 150,000 gallons per day in its sewage stream. The company, however, is reserving the right to inspect for pollutants in incoming drilling wastewater.

It requires pre-testing for “total dissolved solids” and “suspended solids” – generally a measure of the amount of minerals and chemicals in the water – and reserves the right to deny it.

DeSanto said that protects the authority’s equipment, which would “probably” be damaged by heavy loads of solids.

All testing and transportation costs would be paid by the drilling company, which also must carry $2 million in liability insurance, indemnify the authority from all risks associated with hauling the waste and provide a “blanket statement” that it isn’t “hazardous waste.”

The long-term goal is to build a million-gallon-per-day, closed-loop facility to “pre-treat” the water enough that it could be reused in industrial capacities and resell it to the companies that brought it in.In its bid request, the authority is looking to get at least half a cent per gallon for that water. That water would never touch the sewer operation or be discharged into the river.

“It’s the preferred method of disposal by DEP,” said John Minora, the president PA NE Aqua Resources, which is consulting on the project. “We’re left with a sludge cake that gets either landfilled or incinerated. … The water that’s left, it looks a little milky because it’s high in salt.”

That waste could then be mixed with effluent from the plant’s sewer operation to reduce solids levels, thus preventing more discharges to the river, he said. As pollution discharge credits, which would set a limit for how much facilities can discharge, become a reality, the reduced discharges could provide more revenue.

“I think the people who are environmental should be very happy about that,” Minora said. “Recycle and reuse, I don’t think it has to be an us-against-them” situation.

The revenue would go toward the millions the authority will have to spend to upgrade its system for upcoming requirements to reduce pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and to fix stormwater overflows that currently spill untreated sewage into the river whenever it rains heavily.

Potential revenues are “unknown right now because we don’t exactly what the treatment cost is going to be,” DeSanto said. “We feel that there’s enough there that we could make a profit to help our operating budget in the future, help our ratepayers.”

Bids are due by Nov. 16.

Dear John,Marie & CJK,
Your focus is now on the frac water and how best to deal with it. You've identified some possible approaches. Are there any government overseers that we ought to be contacting? Any representatives(Senate,House, city & State) that we ought to be alerting to our concerns? Perhaps if we can bring some light to them they'll be able to bring appropriate oversight to accomplish all/some of our goals.

Frac treatment is a specialized case- would any of the academics previously contacted have some input here?

John's principled position against having a frac pond is enlightened. Too many of our neighbors weren't aware of that as an option.

Guys, I do think we're starting to cook in the right direction.
All good thoughts,
Dan

http://www.allbusiness.com/environment-natural-resources/pollution-...

Trying to cut and paste this. Also, may be a viable sollution going forward.

Dear John,
That is a very interesting website. Presumably then, there are treatment approaches that can be considered. We need to be aware of them and to make others aware as well. Very well done guys.
Dan

first we need to know what they are putting in their frac mixture to know if the facilities can treat it. Every company puts in different chemicals- knowing what they are is crucial when determining the capability of appropriate treatment.

I would think any facility seriously considering treating the waste water would want full disclosure. In addition the articles below indicate the incoming frac water will be tested to determine if the facility will accept or reject the waste.

CJK's point is well taken, and John's thought would be most probable. Of course we won't know for certain, but we can keep our antennae up.
We also need to keep in mind that there are big numbers in play here.
3-9 million gallons of water/well and if memory serves it is anticipated that as many as 2700 wells will be in operation when this gets really going. The ability of the waste water treatment plants will have to have an enormous capacity to handle it.

On the O & G side, they are looking at profits of 60 million dollars per well per year so the return can be there for them (and us).

We just need to make sure that they are good neighbors, and to hold them to fulfill their responsibilities.
Dan

Dan:
Another point of information is that while the volume of water is substantial for the 3-9million gallons of water per well only 8-20% of that amount is actually recovered the rest remains in the subsurface. So we are dealing with less volume per well. At this time I do know how they are disposing of the drilling sludge that is produced from each site. Does anyone know? I have heard that this can have radioactive materials in it, if so where is this going? I would hope to an appropriate disposal site.

http://lewisvilleblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/04/federal-gas-d...
Federal gas drilling study may expand scope
9:58 AM Wed, Apr 07, 2010 |
Wendy Hundley/Reporter






The DMN Washington Bureau reports today that a federal study looking at gas drilling's impact on groundwater may also examine air emissions. Here's the full story:



07:30 AM CDT on Wednesday, April 7, 2010
By DAVE MICHAELS / The Dallas Morning News
dmichaels@dallasnews.com

WASHINGTON - A federal study of risks posed by natural-gas drilling may examine whether residents near well sites are exposed to toxic contaminants through the air.

The study was originally prompted by concerns that a process used to extract gas could contaminate drinking water sources. That process, hydraulic fracturing, is widely used in North Texas ' Barnett Shale.

There are no documented cases of hydraulic fracturing causing groundwater contamination in Texas, according to the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas activity. But state environmental regulators have confirmed a separate concern - elevated levels of cancer-causing benzene in the air near some wells.

Gas producers say air emissions shouldn't fall within the scope of the study, which was urged by Congress. But an EPA document outlining its approach says the "potential exposure pathways to be addressed by this study include ingestion, inhalation, dermal exposure through water, air, food and environmental exposures."

The Independent Petroleum Association of America said that language sounded troubling. In a letter to the EPA, the association's vice president, Lee O. Fuller, wrote that the agency appeared ready to evaluate "emissions issues, community health and environmental justice issues, and many others that would distract the study from its congressional intent."

The scope of the EPA study is scheduled to be discussed Wednesday and Thursday at public meetings in Washington. The EPA will lay out its approach to a panel of scientific advisers, including Robin Autenrieth of Texas A&M University and Danny Reible of the University of Texas.

Environmental groups have been encouraged by the EPA study, which will begin this year. The EPA plans to offer initial findings in 2012, according to materials it made public last month.

"We applaud EPA for undertaking a serious and wide-ranging study of these issues, which we view as an important step toward proper state and federal regulation of this industry," the Sierra Club wrote in comments to the EPA.

The oil and gas industry opposes federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, which is used in 90 percent of U.S. natural gas wells, according to the independent petroleum association. The Obama administration has agreed to take another look at the practice, which was exempted from federal review by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

State regulators currently oversee hydraulic fracturing, which involves shooting fluids underground to fracture rock formations that contain natural gas. The industry argues that state regulation is superior because local regulators are more familiar with the specific geology of drilling sites.

Environmental groups and some congressional Democrats say the state watchdogs haven't demanded enough information from gas producers. Their concerns have been fueled by reports that fracturing chemicals have found their way into drinking water in states such as Pennsylvania and Colorado.

Even if Congress doesn't write new laws that restrict drilling, it may demand more disclosure about what chemicals are used, analysts say.

"That resonates with people on Capitol Hill," said Jason Hutt, a partner in the environmental strategies group at law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

"And it's beginning to resonate in the industry that something may need to be done there," he said.

Hutt said the most controversial subject during the EPA meetings is likely to be how broad the study becomes.

"If you want to talk about storage of waste on the site, I think that is related to whether the [industry] practices are protective of drinking water," he said. "If you want to talk about air emissions, I don't see how that is related."

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.”

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

Thank you, hunter777
I agree totally