Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Fracking Fluids Used on Roads

Uncrowded

Fishizzle, I use worms but I'm looking to upgrade!
I posted as a reply to another thread, but I think it's worthy of it's own separate thread.

Full story is below and here's the link:

Earth Island Institute | Earth Island Journal | The EnvironmentaList

But look at these paragraphs:

Farnelli says that numerous spills and infractions have gone unreported. Particularly alarming is the dumping of wastewater on roads and fields in Dimock. Throughout the summer, Farnelli says, Cabot made a point of “watering” the road that she lives on—a dirt road that has washed out several times since drilling began—to control dust even though no one was complaining about the dust. The strange thing was that it rained a lot last summer, and to Farnelli and others Cabot’s actions never really made sense. Why water the road just before it was supposed to rain?

Using tank trucks, the company would spray the road from one end to the other. Walking back from her neighbor’s one day, Farnelli noticed that the water smelled bad and seemed to have some kind of oil or detergent in it. You could see rainbows in it when the sun hit and there were large bubbles on the surface that just sat there and didn’t break. When residents complained, Cabot started using trucks that said “Fresh Water” on them.

"We think it was produced water,” Farnelli told me. “We think it was frack water." Hydraulic fracturing is a controversial technique that breaks open the shale by injecting millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals also known as fracking fluid deep underground to release the gas. The produced water that comes to the surface often contains naturally occurring radioactive elements and the residual chemicals used in the fracking process. Storing and treating the produced water has emerged as one of the most important issues facing Pennsylvania and New York, where horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are relatively new. According to Farnelli Cabot also sent tank trucks into surrounding fields to empty them of wastewater. Sometimes it would take two days.

“We know that was frack water because there were people who lived around here working for them. And they were some of the ones who had to do it,” she says.

Here's the full story:

Cabot Oil and Gas Faces Lawsuit in Marcellus Shale Drilling

Of all the towns that have been subjected to drilling for natural gas in Pennsylvania since the opening up of the Marcellus Shale, none have suffered more than Dimock. In just over a year several drinking water wells have been contaminated (one of which exploded on New Years Day, ripping through an 8 foot slab of concrete), numerous spills have dumped highly toxic wastewater, diesel fuel, and fracking fluid into local streams and rivers, and residents have been exposed to dangerously high levels of methane gas and heavy metals. The series of infractions on the part of Cabot Oil and Gas, a Houston based energy company that has large holdings in Dimock, resulted in a $120,000 fine from Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) earlier this month. But the cost to residents has been far greater.

On Friday of last week 15 families in Dimock announced that they were suing Cabot for poisoning their water and the likelihood that exposure to toxic chemicals has led to personal injury, including neurological and gastro-intestinal complications. Among the plaintiffs is a Cabot employee and Dimock resident who has knowledge of company practices and violations that have not yet been reported. According to Leslie Lewis, an attorney with one of the firms representing the families, the charges against Cabot are far reaching and reveal a profound degree of negligence and fraudulent conduct. “To me they just seem like a rogue operation,” she says. “Anything goes.”

Things were supposed to go differently in Dimock. Residents were promised handsome royalties and assured that their property and surrounding farmland—their greatest asset—would not be harmed. Today, if they wanted to leave, chances are they wouldn’t be able to sell their homes. “We've all had property damage,” said Pat Farnelli, one of the plaintiffs in the case. “We've all had major downward shifts in the quality of our lives. Probably most of us are starting to feel some health effects. You've got to worry about your kids, your grandkids that live here.”

Farnelli, whose home is surrounded by gas wells, says that her children started to develop stomach problems late last summer. They would be fine at school but when they returned home at the end of the day and drank the water, the symptoms would reappear. Farnelli thought it was some kind of stomach virus and didn’t really suspect gas drilling until her neighbors told her that their water was contaminated. One day her neighbor showed her a glass of water that she says looked a bit cloudy and smelled like formaldehyde or some kind of chemical solvent. “It didn’t smell like water,” she told me.

In some cases it didn’t look like water either. Farnelli says that some residents had tap water that looked like unpasteurized apple cider with a kind of sludgy sediment on the bottom. It was a brownish orange color and had greasy bubbles on top. In 2008 Cabot drilled twenty wells in Dimock and has rapidly increased production since. They hope to drill sixty wells by the end of this year and between fifty and seventy in 2010.

There are many ways to contaminate drinking water wells. According to a Consent Order issued by the DEP in early November, Cabot failed to properly cement well casings in several instances, which can allow methane and other toxic chemicals to leak or migrate into underground aquifers and nearby drinking water wells. When that gas gets trapped in the headspaces of wells, as it did in the case of Norma Fiornetino’s drinking water well on New Years Day, it can explode. Today many residents live in fear that the same might happen to them and that their land and water has been ruined.

But they’re also in a bind. With their homes devalued and royalty payments only trickling in, all they have left are the mineral rights underneath their property. The lawsuit is intended to make up for the damages to property, health, and quality of life but it may be too late to restore the land and water to its previous condition.

Not surprisingly, the company has continued to deny that it is responsible for the undoing of Dimock. In a prepared statement, Cabot CEO Dan O. Dinges said, “we see no merit in these claims and are disappointed that these citizens felt it necessary to proceed in this fashion.”

However, it has become increasingly difficult for the company to brush away the complaints of residents in the face of overwhelming evidence. And the whistleblower in the case will certainly test the company’s ability to defend its practices. “It's horrifying to hear him speak,” said Lewis, referring to Nolan Scott Ely, the Cabot employee who has joined the lawsuit. “It'll all come out.”

"We believe we're going to find some very unpleasant things as a consequence of this suit that have yet to appear in the paper," says Michael Lebron, a spokesperson for the litigants.

Farnelli says that numerous spills and infractions have gone unreported. Particularly alarming is the dumping of wastewater on roads and fields in Dimock. Throughout the summer, Farnelli says, Cabot made a point of “watering” the road that she lives on—a dirt road that has washed out several times since drilling began—to control dust even though no one was complaining about the dust. The strange thing was that it rained a lot last summer, and to Farnelli and others Cabot’s actions never really made sense. Why water the road just before it was supposed to rain?

Using tank trucks, the company would spray the road from one end to the other. Walking back from her neighbor’s one day, Farnelli noticed that the water smelled bad and seemed to have some kind of oil or detergent in it. You could see rainbows in it when the sun hit and there were large bubbles on the surface that just sat there and didn’t break. When residents complained, Cabot started using trucks that said “Fresh Water” on them.

"We think it was produced water,” Farnelli told me. “We think it was frack water." Hydraulic fracturing is a controversial technique that breaks open the shale by injecting millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals also known as fracking fluid deep underground to release the gas. The produced water that comes to the surface often contains naturally occurring radioactive elements and the residual chemicals used in the fracking process. Storing and treating the produced water has emerged as one of the most important issues facing Pennsylvania and New York, where horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are relatively new. According to Farnelli Cabot also sent tank trucks into surrounding fields to empty them of wastewater. Sometimes it would take two days.

“We know that was frack water because there were people who lived around here working for them. And they were some of the ones who had to do it,” she says.

Local residents who have worked on clean up crews after Cabot’s spills have also been exposed to highly toxic chemicals. According to Lewis, on one occasion, two local workers were sent into a pit as part of a clean up crew with no protective gear. They literally burned their hands from the toxic waste.

In the meantime Cabot continues to expand its drilling operations throughout the country. Although the price of natural gas has fallen dramatically, the company’s production for the year is up approximately 10 percent according to a recent statement. In the third quarter of this year they reported a net income of $38.9 million.

Residents of Dimock are still struggling to pay their mortgages.

“One hand giveth not nearly as much as what was promised,” says Lebron, “while the other hand took away everything.”
 
I know we're all starved for cheap local energy sources but they won't be worth a thing when we have no water to drink.
 
I see no proof in this article just accusations. Before everyone sensationalize this lets see the proof.

It's all hearsay right now.

If there is proof of negligence then I hope they slam Cabot, kick them out of the state. One company doesn't make an industry.
 
Last edited:
So when Ms. Farnelli (a party to the lawsuit against the gas company, smelled that awful water and saw that it was oily and foamy and that it was coming out of the gas company trucks) called the PA DEP, what did they say?

You think a reporter might ask that one?

BUT no worries, no doubt, being a rabid CSI watcher, she collected samples for the DEP to test at a later time.

I hope those local truck drivers are on the witness list.

That all sarcastically being said, I hope that if these guys DID do something ILLEGAL, they pay their fines, damages and whatever other consequences come their way. It seems Ms. Farnelli (as well as the author) are a little light on evidence.

(But don't worry about the frack water, Ryan says it's treated.)
 
Tom,

You must not be reading Future Fanatic's posts. The drilling process will be effectively monitored (by the same types of governmental agencies that we can't trust to operate a public healthcare system) to ensure that no harm will come to our drinking water. You can rest assured that Future Fanatic and all of the other landowners in the area have your best interests at heart when it comes to this matter. After all, its not like they are looking to just make a buck or anything like that.

Dick
 
Tom,

You must not be reading Future Fanatic's posts. The drilling process will be effectively monitored (by the same types of governmental agencies that we can't trust to operate a public healthcare system) to ensure that no harm will come to our drinking water. You can rest assured that Future Fanatic and all of the other landowners in the area have your best interests at heart when it comes to this matter. After all, its not like they are looking to just make a buck or anything like that.

Dick

It's YOU not reading my posts...

SHOW me where I've said those things!
 
she collected samples for the DEP to test at a later time.

Civilians that collect ANY SAMPLES do not hold up in any court except that of public opinion.

Was her sample jar 8 oz?
Sterile, approved by the state?
Teflon seal?
What sampling method was employed?
Was any water included with the sample? If so how much?
Any photo documentation included with the sample (i.e. location, method of collection, date time group)
Was chain of custody maintained?
Was the samples secure at all times?
Was the sample refrigerated? Was the refrigerator secured? What also had access to the refrigerator....

OK.. ok ... you get the idea.

Not all that easy...

Hummm.. did she also collect a second sample?

The above all applies to that one to.

If she disposes of that sample.. is the facility and EPA approve waste collection site? land fill or incinerated?
RCRA documentation required?

As I was saying... not all that easy.
 
I see no proof in this article just accusations. Before everyone sensationalize this lets see the proof.



May I paraphrase a line from the movie Jaws:

Hooper: "I am familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this particluar problem until it swims up and [FRACKS] you in the ass..."
 
Dick,

Internet people tend to get mixed up in my mind and I don't track who believes in what but you bring up an interesting point. Let me ask KG Farms and FF directly.

Do each of you trust the various Gov't agencies to properly monitor gas drilling?

Do each of you trust the federal Gov't to fairly interpret the second amendment?

DO each of you think the federal Gov't can do a better job with health care than say Aetna?

If you think they can do one job and not another can you tell us why? I think that would be very informative.

Thanks
Tom
 
Tom,

I trust a good lease with proper environmental protections and good oversight.

A good lease and good neighbors are everything. We watch each others backs because we care.

By that same token do you trust groups that don't tell the whole story, misrepresent the facts and instill unjust fears to further an adgenda, while assuming energy comes from a switch?

"A lie will travel half way around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on"
 
Last edited:
I need to get informed about the issues involved here.

Could someone distill the issues for me into something digestible and brief?

Please leave out allusions to public healthcare, and other such contentious arguments. I'd rather just get the facts, and then research on my own.
 
Tom,

(by the same types of governmental agencies that we can't trust to operate a public healthcare system)
Dick

dude,
this was a poor example. next time go with known facts, ie:
postal service (lost 3.8billion$ this year)
social security (is there any?)
future and kilgour respond in kind. then we all learn stuff. i've already played the raving lunatic/horse's ass. it didn't go well for me.

on a persoanl note, i too have my doubts that obama and his board of directors have space on their plate to deal w/ health care, as much as i hate to admit there is a need for SOME change in that area...(perhaps deregulation? more free enterprise?)
i would prefer they have a few years of managing Government Motors and show us what they can do w/ that...
 
Last edited:
Tom,

I trust a good lease with proper environmental protections and good oversight.

A good lease and good neighbors are everything. We watch each others backs because we care.

By that same token do you trust groups that don't tell the whole story, misrepresent the facts and instill unjust fears to further an adgenda, while assuming energy comes from a switch?

"A lie will travel half way around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on"

Kilgour,

A good lease and good neighbors mean very little to those of us that (i) drink water, and (ii) are not parties to the lease. Although you may care a great deal about the environment (which I think that you do), I would be a fool to rely upon every person that enters into a lease with a gas company (and that person's neighbors) to care about the impact that the lease may have on my drinking water (or even your drinking water - I could care less about Future Fantatic's drinking water). You even note in your response that "good oversight" is important. Presumably that oversight would come from some type of governmental agency. Which brings us back to Tom's questions. . .

Dick
 
I'm sorry, I stand corrected, your posts do make it clear that (i) you don't care about the best interests of the general public, and (ii) you are only interested in making a buck.

lemme help here:

"What other reason would there be to do this other than financial gain? Although I like the idea of energy independence, I admit it's second on my list."
http://www.njflyfishing.com/vBullet...html?highlight=energy+independence#post154316

by the way, i've run the numbers and it's much closer to a MILLION bucks($800,000+), and that's without drilling. the numbers get very serious when they start up the diesel turbines and compress the gas to get it out into the pipeline...
 
Kilgour,

A good lease and good neighbors mean very little to those of us that (i) drink water, and (ii) are not parties to the lease. Although you may care a great deal about the environment (which I think that you do), I would be a fool to rely upon every person that enters into a lease with a gas company (and that person's neighbors) to care about the impact that the lease may have on my drinking water (or even your drinking water - I could care less about Future Fantatic's drinking water). You even note in your response that "good oversight" is important. Presumably that oversight would come from some type of governmental agency. Which brings us back to Tom's questions. . .

Dick

If someone violates fishing regulations who do you run to?

You have to have some reliance on regulators and ensure they have the resources to do their job, permitting fees would pay for this.
 
Perhaps I could try asking a few questions, as I don't seriously plan to read about the modern shale industry.

Is the State of New York planning on leasing drilling rights on public lands in the Catskills? If so, where, and to what corporations?

The Cabot case seems to involve leases, or limited easements (rights to use private property) for drilling. That is not terribly serious, from my perspective, although it seems to me that there is a public interest in regulating such drilling on private property - public interests are involved, but on a smaller scale.

The Catskills have been targeted by NYC for its water supply. The net effect of such water use has, in my opinion, been very positive. Not only for NYC - the trout fisheries have exploded since the creation of artificially cool tailwaters. In the absence of such tailwaters, that keep trout water cool, the water would be too warm to support trout populations at the levels they're at now.

The timber industry, acid factories, and other development harmed brook trout habitat since, perhaps, the 1850s. Brook trout habitat is still scarce, and that is.a concern separate from the issue of the overall health of our trout waters - which is pretty good, imo.

If the State of New York does have plans to allow gas exploration on public lands, this would likely be VERY destructive. If the saw mills and acid factories of the past are any indication of corporate responsibility, the outlook for our trout fishery in the Catskills is likely very bleak.
 
I will read the article tomorrow at work.

Suffice it to say, every industry that has made its home along the rivers of the Catskills has done damage. I mentioned the acid factories and saw mills (read Ed Van Put on this). Even the dairy farms did damage back in the day.

Ironically, the history of the Catskills shows that public regulation of the fishery has been effective, and, in fact, good for the fishery to the extent that the government has taken an interest in protecting it. The absense of strong efforts at regulation has left the ecosystem to the greed of corporations that have ravaged the fisheries.

Even the damming of rivers and creation of, I believe, 7 major reservoirs did far less harm to the ecosystem than the private greed and excess of corporations to the fisheries.

A series of Supreme Court cases, the earliest of which was heard in the 1930s, regulated the development of the NYC reservoir system in the Catskills. Through wise management, effective local activism, and compromise the net effect of the reservoir system has been to the public good. If you didn't already know, the City of New York must pay for environmental restoration every year, as a consequence of those Supreme Court cases. Such restoration is occurring to this day.

The real threat is unregulated corporate greed.

What lies in the balance? It is not simply our interest in fishing, but the natural beauty of New York. The harm is to the philosophy that aesthetic beauty matters, that the health of our environment matters, and, by extension, that the health of our people matters as well.
 
Bicycles should become popular when you ride them to the catskills to fish.

NYC has been nothing short of criminal in the way they took the land and currently hoard the water.

There are harsh realities NYC denies exsist with their water system that will have to be addressed within the next seven years regardless of drilling.
 
Golden,

Here's a link from an article last month in Fly Rod and Reel about gas drilling in the Catskills.

You're right; it's doesn't bode well for our trout streams.

http://www.damascuscitizens.org/drilling-shale_fly_rod_reel.pdf

Interesting article.

He mentions all of the gas drilling in Wyoming. I hear they have thousands of wells along the Green River. Any of you rich guys get out there lately? I mean what has all the drilling and fracking that they have been doing for years and years done to the trout fishing?
 
Last edited:
Kilgour: you are entitled to your opinion regarding New York City's actions regarding water use in the Catskills.

I would argue, however, that the issue of public water use is a foregone conclusion - the reservoirs exist, and they are needed. The benefits exceed the harm done.

Remember, Kilgour, that New Yorkers must drink water, shower, shit and shave. Arguing against that is silly.

Compromise is the way on water use issues, and public regulation has been fairly effective. The fishing industry has thrived in the Catskills, and largely due to the water management that resulted from the creation of the reservoir system.

Smallmouth bass used to be the dominant species of fish in the Delaware, if catching a trout matters to you as more rewarding than landing a bass.

And, btw, all of America is faced with issues relating to water supply. New York is no exception.
 
I'm sorry, I stand corrected, your posts do make it clear that (i) you don't care about the best interests of the general public, and (ii) you are only interested in making a buck.

See Dick spin again.

What ARE the best interests of the general public?

IF none of the gloom and doom is true, is it NOT in the best interest of the public to increase the supply of gas (decreasing the price) AND have it produced domestically?

And WHICH general public are we talking about? For those who use gas to heat their homes and/or water OR to cook with, is not the gas you burn extracted from SOME "general public" guy's little piece of heaven? Do you not care about HIM or his environment? Well, maybe NOW you do, but have we not been burnin' natural gas for some time now? Where was your outrage 5 years ago?

I'm only out to make a buck...

Yeah, I've owned the place for years. Paid money. Pay taxes. I chose to live in povertyville long before there was ANY idea that there was gas here. I've never even LOGGED the property to make a buck. Did it all to own some property to take care of and leave for the next generation. The money I will receive for gas drilling will make THAT so much easier. Hey, you can still save a piece of nature if you really want to... 150 acres or so... $360,000 or so... come on, show us money grabbers how it's done... buy it and DON'T lease it.

Speaking of doing it only for the money. Any of you that use natural gas and are against drilling... Why are you paying the gas companies to rape and pillage? Really, answer that.
 
Last edited:
Futr Fan: I have posted very generally on these issues, and recognize a big difference between private owners, such as yourself, leasing your property for gas exploration. The real issue is the leasing of public lands by the State of New York, and the extent to which that may occur. Believe me, that before I make my arguments against that, I don't have ANY problem with your personal financial decision.

You raise some interesting questions. First, you ask why don't people buy property for 360,000 dollars in order to conserve it? The answer to that is easy - it is too expensive. To the extent that ANY drilling, on public or private lands, affects a public interest (water quality and the integrity of our ecosystems), we have a right to seek regulation of such activities.

The question you ask about domestic production of energy is one that, in fact, I also agree with you on. Suffice it to say, we agree that our nation ought to seek energy independence, and to do so in a responsible manner. Thus, I support natural gas exploration, but I am opposed to it in the Catskills. Thus, we agree that exploration should occur, but disagree about where in the US it should be done.

Moreover, while I may support some drilling, I also believe that the public interest in clean, renewable energy sources is profoundly greater than the quick fix that exploration for natural gas in the Catskills may offer.
 
Back
Top