Really Otto? On what are you basing your assessment? Are you familiar with the the tactics used by some of these contractors? More importantly, are you familiar with their shortcuts? And before you start thinking i am some sort of tree hugger whacko, i am actually not opposed to fracking. But given the extremely limited amount of information in the article, and the practices of some of the people involved in this industry, you cannot make your bs detemination with any degree of accuracy. if you have in-depth knowledge of this specific case, then please share it with everyone so they can agree with you on the basis of facts.
Good comments, MikeP. If it were Otto’s child, I wonder if he would be so cavalier without determining the facts. All industries have their less responsible players. Look at how the BP situation in the Gulf escalated over time. Truth will win out in this one.
It unlikely that these wells were contaminatded by frac fluids. If they were it was a either a short cut or a bad cementing job on the casing job in which case that cementing contractor should be held accountable. The Penn DEQ is going to have to set reqiurements before the lease holders of Penn are comfortable with the horizontal drilling and the staged frac production/stimulation process. A best practice may be to set a standard for surfacc casing to extned 300 – 500 – 1000 feet below the last known private or public aquifer. The contractor could then be reqired to run either or both a positive and/or negative casing test, a test to determine the effectivness of the casing cement job. The PDEQ could even witness the test and or have all the docuements sent to them and analyzed asap, setting acceptance criteria and standards. Just my thoughts and opinion. Just a possible solution to a gas play that could really do a lot of good for the people and economy in the marcellus shale area. P
The gas lobby is hard at work to get to the gas before they are found liable. Fact is that I remember how the coal companies stripped the land in western PA and then they left, filed for bankruptcy and that was the end of it. Folks should have their wells tested BEFORE any drilling so they can “attempt” to develop any causality, because the drillers will deny it until they are dragged into court and have to settle. Don’t believe the gas extractors for one minute; in PA one company did the right thing and provided a list of the chemicals and solvents they are injecting into the ground. You’d be surprised to see the 100 or so they listed; none of these are harmless, but as long as you don’t drink the water every day for your whole life, you won’t die but your children will or at least they will have cancers etc. WHY CAN’T THEY DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS FEWER DRAWBACKS? Why can’t they drill without just ignoring pollution? Why not find a way to extract the gas without having ANY potential? It is precisely that they can’t find a DIRECT link, that they insist there is nothing to worry about. That is the B.S., that this can be done without hurting the environment or people. the media is being used to advertise their claims, while they condemn that film about the harm they have already done. And what about the resultant discharge? Where does that go, to a containment pond, where it can sit for a thousand years? The tradeoff for the gas is our future health and well-being, the land-owners whoe leased the property are the only ones who profit; what do they care about their neighbors? I say, let’s tax ’em, mandate a clean-up plan, and have them report on a quarterly basis any untoward levels of the fracking fluids in and out so we can audit their production. that is the prudent thing to do, make them good neighbors as well as business partners. Let them drink the water and see for themselves….
People who are opposed to something sometimes will take drastic measures. I am not saying anyone in this case did wrong.
Several years ago a man built a house next to a farm near me. He opposed the farmer putting the manure back on his fields even though the farm had been there for generations. He claimed in lawsuits that the manure caused birth defects in a child.
Since I knew both people involved I was ask to witness a water sampling for both parties. The health department rep and myself went to the house. They ran water for a few minutes to clear out sediment in the pipes and then a sample was taken by both the health department and then the home owner. The health department sample came back no contamination but the home owners sample, sent to an independent lab, came back contaminated.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Total BS
Really Otto? On what are you basing your assessment? Are you familiar with the the tactics used by some of these contractors? More importantly, are you familiar with their shortcuts? And before you start thinking i am some sort of tree hugger whacko, i am actually not opposed to fracking. But given the extremely limited amount of information in the article, and the practices of some of the people involved in this industry, you cannot make your bs detemination with any degree of accuracy. if you have in-depth knowledge of this specific case, then please share it with everyone so they can agree with you on the basis of facts.
Good comments, MikeP. If it were Otto’s child, I wonder if he would be so cavalier without determining the facts. All industries have their less responsible players. Look at how the BP situation in the Gulf escalated over time. Truth will win out in this one.
It unlikely that these wells were contaminatded by frac fluids. If they were it was a either a short cut or a bad cementing job on the casing job in which case that cementing contractor should be held accountable. The Penn DEQ is going to have to set reqiurements before the lease holders of Penn are comfortable with the horizontal drilling and the staged frac production/stimulation process. A best practice may be to set a standard for surfacc casing to extned 300 – 500 – 1000 feet below the last known private or public aquifer. The contractor could then be reqired to run either or both a positive and/or negative casing test, a test to determine the effectivness of the casing cement job. The PDEQ could even witness the test and or have all the docuements sent to them and analyzed asap, setting acceptance criteria and standards. Just my thoughts and opinion. Just a possible solution to a gas play that could really do a lot of good for the people and economy in the marcellus shale area. P
The gas lobby is hard at work to get to the gas before they are found liable. Fact is that I remember how the coal companies stripped the land in western PA and then they left, filed for bankruptcy and that was the end of it. Folks should have their wells tested BEFORE any drilling so they can “attempt” to develop any causality, because the drillers will deny it until they are dragged into court and have to settle. Don’t believe the gas extractors for one minute; in PA one company did the right thing and provided a list of the chemicals and solvents they are injecting into the ground. You’d be surprised to see the 100 or so they listed; none of these are harmless, but as long as you don’t drink the water every day for your whole life, you won’t die but your children will or at least they will have cancers etc. WHY CAN’T THEY DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS FEWER DRAWBACKS? Why can’t they drill without just ignoring pollution? Why not find a way to extract the gas without having ANY potential? It is precisely that they can’t find a DIRECT link, that they insist there is nothing to worry about. That is the B.S., that this can be done without hurting the environment or people. the media is being used to advertise their claims, while they condemn that film about the harm they have already done. And what about the resultant discharge? Where does that go, to a containment pond, where it can sit for a thousand years? The tradeoff for the gas is our future health and well-being, the land-owners whoe leased the property are the only ones who profit; what do they care about their neighbors? I say, let’s tax ’em, mandate a clean-up plan, and have them report on a quarterly basis any untoward levels of the fracking fluids in and out so we can audit their production. that is the prudent thing to do, make them good neighbors as well as business partners. Let them drink the water and see for themselves….
People who are opposed to something sometimes will take drastic measures. I am not saying anyone in this case did wrong.
Several years ago a man built a house next to a farm near me. He opposed the farmer putting the manure back on his fields even though the farm had been there for generations. He claimed in lawsuits that the manure caused birth defects in a child.
Since I knew both people involved I was ask to witness a water sampling for both parties. The health department rep and myself went to the house. They ran water for a few minutes to clear out sediment in the pipes and then a sample was taken by both the health department and then the home owner. The health department sample came back no contamination but the home owners sample, sent to an independent lab, came back contaminated.