Group: Corbett should heed drilling study
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Group__Corbett_should_heed_drilling_study_05-09-2011.html
Posted: May 10, 2011
STEVE MOCARSKY smocarsky@timesleader.com
The head of a local group that supports more restrictions on natural gas drilling says a scientific report released on Monday substantiates group members’ concerns and should be evidence enough for Gov. Tom Corbett to impose a moratorium on drilling in Pennsylvania.
Dr. Tom Jiunta, president and founder of the Luzerne County-based Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, said a report by a team of Duke University scientists that is to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, “documented pathways from where they frack to drinking water supplies.”
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the injection of water, sand and a low concentration of chemicals into a shale formation a couple thousand feet underground at high pressure to stimulate the release of natural gas from the formation. A perforation gun lowered into the well casing detonates charges that create initial fractures in the shale.
Jiunta said a Cornell University scientist, Anthony Ingraffea, showed his group slides indicating that scientists believe the fractures are “unpredictable.”
“If pathways exist for methane, then it also exists for the toxic heavy metals found underground along with the brine solutions that are hazardous and the fracking chemicals,” Jiunta said. “It’s common sense.”
“Gov. Corbett said last week he would rely on science, not emotion” for making decisions related to natural gas exploration. “There’s plenty of science out there now, and I think this proves it,” Jiunta said.
In a prepared statement, Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said Pennsylvania has “an extensive and well-documented history of naturally occurring methane impacting private water wells, long before Marcellus development began just a few years ago.”
She called the report “at best inconclusive. Further, the fact that is was prepared, in part, by a vocal and outspoken natural gas production critic raises a host of questions regarding academic veracity.”
Travis Windle, spokesman for the coalition, pointed to a New York Times article that quoted John Conrad, a New York hydrogeologist “closely affiliated with the drilling industry,” who said the researchers may have “jumped the gun” by relying on only post-drilling data without testing water wells before drilling occurred in the area.
Windle also noted that Conrad told The New York Times that the thermogenic methane found in the water wells, which many scientists say comes from the same deep gas layers where drilling occurs, could be naturally occurring.
Local drilling opponent not surprised by findings
http://citizensvoice.com/news/local-drilling-opponent-not-surprised-by-findings-1.1144256#axzz1LwpBiOFT
Elizabeth Skrapits
Published: May 10, 2011
Dr. Thomas Jiunta said Monday the Duke University study shows drilling 'is a pathway' for methane to get into drinking water.
Results of a study by scientists at Duke University showing a link between natural gas drilling and water well contamination come as no surprise to a local drilling opponent.
Dr. Thomas Jiunta, a co-founder of the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, said the study proves what environmentalists have been saying all along: that there’s “definitely a chance and a likelihood” for gas to migrate along the pathways between drilling sites and drinking water sources.
“The thing that I think is important is that shows it’s a pathway,” he said. “The methane itself isn’t necessarily dangerous to drink, but it’s explosive, obviously, as it builds up.”
If methane can travel through the pathways, other chemicals, heavy metals and the water used in hydraulic fracturing could also migrate through them, Jiunta said. Pressure in the natural gas wells could increase that migration, he said.
“That just blows my mind that they’re still allowing this (gas drilling), after what we know. It’s just one thing after another,” Jiunta said.
Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking
by Abrahm Lustgarten
ProPublica, May 9, 2011
For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.
The peer-reviewed study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, stands to shape the contentious debate over whether drilling is safe and begins to fill an information gap that has made it difficult for lawmakers and the public to understand the risks.
The research was conducted by four scientists at Duke University. They found that levels of flammable methane gas in drinking water wells increased to dangerous levels when those water supplies were close to natural gas wells. They also found that the type of gas detected at high levels in the water was the same type of gas that energy companies were extracting from thousands of feet underground, strongly implying that the gas may be seeping underground through natural or manmade faults and fractures, or coming from cracks in the well structure itself.
“Our results show evidence for methane contamination of shallow drinking water systems in at least three areas of the region and suggest important environmental risks accompanying shale gas exploration worldwide,” the article states.
The group tested 68 drinking water wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale drilling areas in northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York State. Sixty of those wells were tested for dissolved gas. While most of the wells had some methane, the water samples taken closest to the gas wells had on average 17 times the levels detected in wells further from active drilling. The group defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or about six tenths of a mile, from a gas well.
The average concentration of the methane detected in the water wells near drilling sites fell squarely within a range that the U.S Department of Interior says is dangerous and requires urgent “hazard mitigation” action, according to the study.
The researchers did not find evidence that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing had contaminated any of the wells they tested, allaying for the time being some of the greatest fears among environmentalists and drilling opponents.
But they were alarmed by what they described as a clear correlation between drilling activity and the seepage of gas contaminants underground, a danger in itself and evidence that pathways do exist for contaminants to migrate deep within the earth.
“We certainly didn’t expect to see such a strong relationship between the concentration of methane in water and the nearest gas wells. That was a real surprise,” said Robert Jackson, a biology professor at Duke and one of the report’s authors.
Methane contamination of drinking water wells has been a common complaint among people living in gas drilling areas across the country. A 2009 investigation by ProPublica revealed that methane contamination from drilling was widespread, including in Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In several cases, homes blew up after gas seeped into their basements or water supplies. In Pennsylvania a 2004 accident killed three people, including a baby.
In Dimock, Pa., where part of the Duke study was performed, some residents’ water wells exploded or their water could be lit on fire. In at least a dozen cases in Colorado, ProPublica’s investigation found, methane had infiltrated drinking water supplies that residents said were clean until hydraulic fracturing was performed nearby.
The drilling industry and some state regulators described some of these cases as “anecdotal” and said they were either unconnected to drilling activity or were an isolated problem. But the consistency of the Duke findings raises questions about how unusual and widespread such cases of methane contamination may be.
“It suggests that at least in the region we looked, this is a more general problem than people expected,” Jackson told ProPublica.
For those who live in the midst of this problem, the report serves as long-awaited vindication. “We weren’t just blowing smoke. What we were talking about was the truth,” said Ron Carter, a Dimock resident whose water went bad when drilling began there in 2008 and was later tested as part of the study. “Now I’m happy that at least something helps prove out our theory.”
Methane is not regulated in drinking water, and while research is limited, it is not currently believed to be harmful to drink. But the methane is dangerous because as it collects in enclosed spaces it can asphyxiate people nearby, or lead to an explosion.
To determine where the methane in the wells they tested came from, the researchers ran it through a molecular fingerprinting process called an isotopic analysis. Water samples furthest from gas drilling showed traces of biogenic methane—a type of methane that can naturally appear in water from biological decay. But samples taken closer to drilling had high concentrations of thermogenic methane, which comes from the same hydrocarbon layers where gas drilling is targeted. That—plus the proximity to the gas wells—told the researchers that the contamination was linked to the drilling processes.
In addition to the methane, other types of gases were also detected, providing further evidence that the gas originated with the hydrocarbon deposits miles beneath the earth and that it was unique to the active gas drilling areas. Ethane, another component of natural gas, and other hydrocarbons were detected in 81 percent of water wells near active gas drilling, but in only 9 percent of water wells further away. Propane and butane were also detected in some drilling area wells.
The report noted that as much as a mile of rock separated the bottom of the shallow drinking water wells from the deep zones fractured for gas, and identified several ways in which fluids or the gas contaminants could move underground: The substances could be displaced by the pressures underground; could travel through new fractures or connections to faults created by the hydraulic fracturing process; or could leak from the well casing itself somewhere closer to the surface.
The geology in Pennsylvania and New York, they said, is tectonically active with faults and other pathways through the rock. They noted that leaky well casings were the most likely cause of the contamination, but couldn’t rule out long-range underground migration, which they said “might be possible due to both the extensive fracture systems reported for these formations and the many older, uncased wells drilled and abandoned.”
The water was also analyzed for signs that dangerous fluids from inside the gas wells might have escaped into water supplies. The group tested for salts, radium and other chemicals that, if detected, would have signaled that the produced water or natural fluids in the well’s target zone were making it to the aquifers. But those types of fluids were not found. The group did not test for fracking chemicals or hydrocarbons like benzene, relying instead on the saline or radioactive compounds like radium as indicators.
In an interview, Jackson said that gas was more likely to migrate underground than liquid chemicals. Based on his findings, he doesn’t believe the toxic chemicals pumped into the ground during fracturing are likely to end up in water supplies the same way the methane did. “I’m not ready to use the word impossible,” he said, “but unlikely.”
In a white paper the group issued along with the journal article, Jackson and the others acknowledged the uncertainty and called for more research. “Contamination is often stated to be impossible due to the distance between the well and the drinking water,” they wrote. “Although this seems reasonable in most (and possibly all) cases, field and modeling studies should be undertaken to confirm this assumption… Understanding any cases where this assumption is incorrect will be important—when, where, and why they occur—to limit problems with hydraulic fracturing operations.”
A hydrogeologist closely affiliated with the drilling industry raised questions about the study. “It’s possible, assuming their measurements are accurate, that all they have done is document the natural conditions of the aquifer,” said John Conrad, president of Conrad Geosciences in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. Conrad spoke with ProPublica at the suggestion of Energy In Depth, a drilling industry advocacy group, but said that he did not work for EID.
He said that the thermogenic methane — which many scientists say comes from the same deep gas layers where drilling occurs — could be naturally occurring. He also said the researchers didn’t test enough wells to support their conclusions, though he could not say how many wells would have been appropriate.
Conrad said the most likely cause for the contamination identified by the Duke researchers — that the gas was leaking out of faulty well casings — seemed implausible.
“For their assumptions to hold up there would have to be more than just the occasional bad cement job,” he said. “They are implying that where you see hydraulic fracturing you should expect to see elevated methane. We are aware of faulty cement jobs. But we don’t believe that it is common and we certainly don’t believe that it is universal.”
The Duke study precedes a national study by the Environmental Protection Agency into the dangers of hydraulic fracturing that is expected to be finished sometime next year. Last year the EPA found that some chemicals known to be used in fracturing were among the contaminants detected in 11 residential drinking water wells in Pavillion, Wy.—where more than 200 natural gas wells have been drilled in recent years—but that investigation is continuing and the scientists haven’t concluded that the contamination is linked with drilling or hydraulic fracturing.
The release of the Duke research could immediately shape the increasingly intense public debate over drilling and hydraulic fracturing, especially in some of the areas where the research was conducted. Pennsylvania, which holds drilling companies liable for drinking water contamination within 1000 feet of a gas well, might consider the fact that the Duke researchers found the contamination extended to about 3,000 feet, Jackson said. New York State has a moratorium in place for hydraulic fracturing of horizontally-drilled wells—which cover more area and require more chemicals—through the end of June to allow for more consideration of the risks. “I would extend that at least temporarily,” Jackson said.
Congress, too, is taking note.
“This study provides eye-opening scientific evidence about methane contamination and the risks that irresponsible natural gas drilling poses for drinking water supplies,” said Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-NY. “It provides yet another reason why more study of the environmental and health risks associated with hydraulic fracturing is needed.”
Hinchey is one of several Democratic members of Congress who recently re-introduced the FRAC Act, which calls for public disclosure of the chemicals used underground. The bill, which is currently languishing in the House, would remove an exemption in federal law that prohibits the EPA from regulating hydraulic fracturing.
DEP withholds driller’s blowout response, saying it is under review
http://citizensvoice.com/news/drilling/dep-withholds-driller-s-blowout-response-saying-it-is-under-review-1.1143130#axzz1LlOmCfIh
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: May 7, 2011
The Department of Environmental Protection is reviewing a natural gas driller’s response to a violation notice that asked why and how a well failed in Bradford County in late April causing wastewater to flow into state waterways.
Chesapeake Energy Corp. submitted its response to the violation notice on the evening of April 29, the deadline set by state regulators. Both DEP and Chesapeake declined to release the response.
“We are not making this information publicly available at this time as we need to carefully examine it as part of our on-going review of the blowout,” DEP spokesman Daniel Spadoni said.
The Times-Tribune submitted a Right-To-Know request for a copy of the response on Friday.
Chesapeake lost control of the Atgas 2H well in LeRoy Township late on April 19 during a hydraulic fracturing operation. An apparent failure of a flange below an above-ground piece of equipment called a frack stack caused thousands of gallons of tainted wastewater to overwhelm the company’s containment systems and flow into Towanda Creek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River.
The company has said tests “indicate only minimal environmental impact as a result of this incident.” State regulators confirmed last week that the spill killed several frogs and tadpoles in a farmer’s pond.
In its violation notice, DEP directed Chesapeake to tell the agency what chemicals and other materials it used to fracture the well, what failed at the wellhead and caused the spill, what exactly spilled into the environment and why it took the company 12 hours to bring a well control specialist to the site from Texas when a similar firm is located in Pennsylvania.
llegere@timesshamrock.com
Pa. group wants stronger limits on gas drilling
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9N1G8480.htm
By MARC LEVY
HARRISBURG, Pa.
Policymakers in Pennsylvania should immediately strengthen rules that make areas around sensitive ecosystems, water sources and places where people live or work off limits to natural gas drilling, an environmental group said Thursday.
The message comes as drilling intensifies in the hotly pursued Marcellus Shale formation, the nation’s largest-known natural gas reservoir, and state officials consider adding extra safety precautions around drilling sites.
PennEnvironment said it has found permitted Marcellus Shale sites within two miles of numerous day cares, schools and hospitals in Pennsylvania. It also said that there are hundreds of instances of environmental violations flagged by state regulators at Marcellus Shale drilling sites within two miles of schools or day cares.
Current Pennsylvania law provides for a buffer of 200 feet between a drilling site and buildings and private water wells, as well as a 100-foot buffer around many waterways and wetlands. PennEnvironment’s Erika Staaf said her organization ideally would like to see mile-wide buffers as protection from potential drilling-related air or water contamination, although it is unlikely that the state Legislature would approve that.
“We have to step back and say, ‘What is the right distance and what are we able to see move through the Legislature?'” Staaf said. “But what we know right now is the distance (allowed in current law) is too close, and it needs to be farther away.”
A spokesman for one of the leading Marcellus Shale drilling companies, Range Resources Corp. of Fort Worth, Texas, said pollution from a drilling site is no more dangerous than a construction site.
“By (PennEnvironment’s) definition then, you shouldn’t have any construction within two miles of a school,” Range Resources spokesman Matt Pitzarella said.
Pitzarella said the buffers are valuable as a way protect neighbors against the nuisance and inconvenience of drilling a well, and Range supports a 500-foot buffer between a well and any school or occupied residential or business structure, unless the owner permits it to be closer.
The Marcellus Shale formation lies primarily beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio. Pennsylvania, however, is the center of activity, with nearly 3,000 wells drilled in the past three years and many thousands more planned in the coming years as thick shale emerges as an affordable, plentiful and profitable source of natural gas.
At least a half-dozen bills awaiting action in the GOP-controlled Legislature would increase some or all of those buffers. Many of the bills would maintain exceptions that are in current law.
For instance, a company would be able to get permission to drill within a buffer if, for instance, it secured an owner’s permission or took extra precautions that satisfy state regulators.
Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Chairwoman Mary Jo White, R-Venango, wants to wait to hear what Gov. Tom Corbett’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission reports before considering at least three bills in her committee, a spokesman said. The commission is due to report in July.
One of the Senate bills, introduced by Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Lycoming, would increase the existing buffer around water wells and buildings to 500 feet. It would leave intact the 100-foot buffer around waterways and wetlands, but it would allow state regulators to impose a 500-foot buffer around them for the storage of hazardous chemicals or materials used in drilling.
In the House, a bill introduced by Rep. Karen Boback, R-Luzerne, would increase existing buffers to 1,000 feet. Clearfield County Rep. Bud George, the ranking Democrat on the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, has a bill to establish 1,000-foot barriers around buildings and water wells. For drillers that use hydraulic fracturing or horizontal drilling, his will would establish buffers of 1,000 feet around groundwater sources and 2,500 feet around surface water sources.
For decades, energy companies have drilled shallow oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. However, in the last three years, fresh environmental concerns have arisen with the influx of energy companies using high volumes of chemical-laced water in a process known as hydraulic fracturing to drill lucrative and deep Marcellus Shale wells. They also use the recent innovation of horizontal drilling underground to increase a well’s production.
Williams Production Appalachia has no plans to drill into Utica Shale
http://citizensvoice.com/news/williams-has-no-plans-to-drill-into-utica-shale-1.1140376#axzz1LCf5p0Sg
By Elizabeth Skrapits (Staff Writer)
Published: May 2, 2011
Beneath the deep-lying Marcellus Shale lies the even deeper Utica Shale, a rock formation that geologists say also has the potential to be rich in natural gas.
However, nobody is tapping into it in Northeastern Pennsylvania just yet, and the Utica remains largely unexplored in the rest of the state.
The state Department of Environmental Protection issued Williams Production Appalachia LLC a permit on Feb. 4 to drill deeper for its exploratory well on Route 487 in Sugarloaf Township, Columbia County, past the Benton Foundry.
The permit sparked rumors Williams planned to drill into the Utica Shale, but company spokeswoman Helen Humphreys says they’re not true.
“I know that we are not going into the Utica Shale at all,” she said.
The plan is to drill down past the Marcellus Shale to tap into the Onondaga limestone formation beneath, then go back up into the Marcellus, Humphreys said. The well has been drilled and the next step will be to hydraulically fracture it, but she said she didn’t have a date for when it will be done.
A map issued by DEP on April 5 shows that, like the Marcellus, the Utica Shale runs completely through Northeastern Pennsylvania including Luzerne, Lackawanna, Wyoming and Columbia counties.
Although DEP keeps track of Marcellus Shale drilling permits, the Utica is still pretty much off the radar for the state agency.
“We don’t have anything really identifying the formation in our system right now,” said Dave English of the DEP Bureau of Oil & Gas Management. “Basically all we’re tracking at this point in time is the Marcellus.”
There have been permits issued for the Utica Shale – although not many, and none in Northeastern Pennsylvania – and there are several other shale formations being tested, English said.
Range Resources, the first company to drill a Marcellus Shale well in Pennsylvania, in 2004, is a pioneer in the state’s portion of the Utica Shale as well.
Last year, the company drilled a productive well in Beaver County. Range Resources President and Chief Operating Officer Jeffrey Ventura reported in an April 27 conference call the company is planning a second horizontal well in the Utica Shale later this year.
eskrapits@citizensvoice.com, 570-821-2072
Environmental Protection Agency steps into probe of fracking spill
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/04/environmental_protection_agenc.html
Published: Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 12:00 AM
By DONALD GILLILAND, The Patriot-News
The federal Environmental Protection Agency has thrown an elbow against Pennsylvania regulators in the job to regulate natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale.
The EPA announced Monday afternoon that it is investigating last week’s spill of drilling fluids at a Chesapeake Energy site in Bradford County.
Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection remains the lead investigating agency, but the EPA has asked Chesapeake officials for lists of fracking chemicals used, if any radioactive compounds were in the spill, and what affects there were to drinking-water sources.
“We want a complete accounting of operations at the site to determine our next steps in this incident and to help prevent future releases of this kind,” said EPA Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin.
EPA’s action marks “a significant change in approach,” former DEP Secretary John Hanger said Monday.
“The EPA is asserting jurisdiction in a manner that it did not during my time as secretary or prior to this incident,” said Hanger. “It means that the gas-drilling industry in Pennsylvania will be regulated in practice by both DEP and EPA, at least in some cases and respects.”
An EPA spokesman said such information requests are “a common fact-finding tool which we use when necessary,” but they are apparently a first for the agency in regard to the Marcellus Shale.
Much of what EPA would do duplicates what DEP is already doing, and consistency in regulation — be it strict or otherwise — is what the business needs, those in the industry said Monday night. Having two monitors could foster confusion.
“Each and every one of EPA’s questions will be answered by DEP, as required under new state regulations,” said one. “This action is clearly more about politics and grabbing headlines.”
The New York Times recently reported an internal battle within the EPA over whether the agency should intercede in Pennsylvania to clamp down on drilling in the Marcellus Shale.
That coverage was less than flattering for the agency, which some see as hamstrung by powerful industry lobbying.
Nevertheless, the EPA fared better than Pennsylvania regulators, whom The New York Times story portrayed as bumbling and beholden to drilling interests.
The timing of the EPA’s move — last week’s spill involved no injuries, no damage and minimal environmental impact — had some in the industry questioning it.
There might also be personal politics involved. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson recently said she had attempted to call Gov. Tom Corbett about regulation of Marcellus Shale, but Corbett never called her back.
Corbett’s news secretary, Kevin Harley, denied that the office received such a call.
Some environmentalists believe Pennsylvania has been too permissive and have been calling for the EPA to step in.
DEP did not address EPA’s entry into the matter directly.
“DEP has been on-site around the clock since the beginning of this incident, and as the regulatory agency, we continue to lead the way, “ DEP spokeswoman Katy Gresh said late Monday.
“DEP issued Chesapeake a comprehensive notice of violation Friday morning, telling the operator to respond to important questions that we have,” she said.
Those questions are similar to those asked by the EPA.
Chesapeake Energy has said an equipment failure caused the drilling brine — also known as fracking fluid — to gush out of the well and overwhelm containment systems. Some of the fluids reached a tributary of the Susquehanna River, but by the following afternoon that was stopped. The well was brought under control Thursday.
David Sternberg, the media officer for EPA’s Region 3 in Philadelphia said: “The information requested includes data on the cause and environmental consequences of this accident. EPA will evaluate this information promptly, in consultation with DEP, and take whatever action is needed to protect public health and the environment.
A Chesapeake spokesman said, “We intend to comply with the EPA’s request for information and have already communicated with the agency about how best to prioritize its requests in relation to the overall and ongoing response efforts.”
Chesapeake voluntarily suspended operations in the Marcellus Shale last week as it investigates the spill.
State geologists mapping deep aquifers
http://thedailyreview.com/news/state-geologists-mapping-deep-aquifers-1.1137358
by robert swift (Harrisburg Bureau Chief)
Published: April 26, 2011
State geologists are mapping the location of the deepest water aquifers in response to the upsurge in natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale formation.
With Marcellus wells reaching several thousand feet deeper than traditional shallow gas wells, locating the deep aquifers will tell geologists where potable water supplies that could be affected by drilling operations can be found.
The Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey, one of state government’s oldest offices dating to 1836, is taking on new work as a result of Marcellus development, survey director George Love told the citizens’ advisory council for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Geologists are also consulting an extensive water well inventory as part of this effort. Under state law, drillers of water wells are required to submit a public record after completing a new well.
In addition to locating aquifers, the survey is starting to examine the impact of hydrofracking operations on groundwater supplies, he added.
Love said the survey’s aim is to provide unbiased information.
The survey’s geologists routinely provide information about groundwater supplies, geologic formations and hazards and the location and extent of mineral deposits to state and local officials, commercial firms and the public as well.
The survey’s regional studies are of particular use to local and regional planning commissions, said Love.
Long before the Marcellus drilling became a phenomenon, the survey’s oil and gas division conducted extensive studies of Pennsylvania’s oil-and-gas producing areas to show where future prospecting would pay off.
By studying geologic data from oil and gas wells, the survey produces maps and cross-section diagrams as well annual production reports for minerals.
The roots of the survey lie in the development of the coal and iron industries in the early 19th century. The anthracite fields of Northeast Pennsylvania were among the first areas surveyed. The early surveys also identified potential routes for roads and railroads serving the new industries.
In the modern area, the survey provides information about sinkholes in the limestone-bearing regions of southern Pennsylvania and likely underground storage sites for any future program to sequester carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The survey is perhaps best known for its series of quadrangle and county topographic maps that are the basis of planning, land development, agriculture and recreation projects.
Contact the writer: rswift@timesshamrock.com
Residents claim negligence, sue Chesapeake
Arbitration sought by Bradford County families. Contaminated water claimed.
SCRANTON – Attorney Todd J. O’Malley on Monday filed what he called the first in a series of lawsuits against natural gas drilling companies on behalf of families he said have been harmed by negligent drilling activities.
Representing three Bradford County families, O’Malley, of O’Malley & Langan in Scranton, and New York attorney William Friedlander, filed a petition in U.S. District Court seeking to force Chesapeake Energy Corp. into arbitration, claiming the company contaminated their water, devalued their land and caused many other hardships.
Chesapeake Appalachia LLC and Nomac Drilling LLC are also named as respondents.
The petition states that Wyalusing residents Mike and Jonna Phillips, Scott and Cassie Spencer and Jared and Heather McMicken, all living in homes along Paradise Road, entered into 10-year oil and gas leases with Chesapeake in 2007 or 2008.
The petition also states that the families “suffered water and property contamination caused by the negligent and grossly negligent oil and gas drilling activities” of the companies, which “caused the release, spill, discharge, and emission of combustible gases, hazardous chemicals, and industrial wastes from their oil and gas drilling facilities.”
The releases caused damages including loss of home values, costs of property remediation, loss of quality of life, emotional distress and punitive damage. The amount in dispute exceeds $75,000, the petition states.
O’Malley said clauses in the leases require arbitration for such disputes, but the companies have refused to arbitrate. He said arbitration would be faster than a full-blown court case and the families need relief now.
O’Malley said water purification systems Chesapeake installed for the families work poorly if at all and improper installation led to flooding and mold problems in one family’s home.
“It has been one nightmare after another for them,” he said.
A Chesapeake spokesman, who was unaware of the petition, said he would look into the matter but did not call back on Monday.
Nels Taber, regional director for the North Central regional Office of the state Department of Environmental Protection, said DEP was informed of the gas migration problems in July 2010 and determined that the residents’ water wells “had been impacted by gas drilling activities.” He said Chesapeake took “some remedial activities” and Chesapeake installed three new drinking water with water treatment systems.
Taber said the possible levying of fines was “an ongoing matter.”
O’Malley said his clients were “not going to get rich” through the gas leases because each family owns only 2 acres of land. He said they signed the leases because a land man convinced them it would reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
O’Malley said he is representing about 10 other families in different locations who have suffered similar problems that he says were caused by Chesapeake or Chief Gathering.
Pa. ponders penalties over Bradford County drilling site mishap
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Pa__ponders_penalties_over_Bradford_County_drilling_site_mishap_04-24-2011.html
Posted: April 25, 2011
LAURA OLSON Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Once final seal is in place, Chesapeake can begin a probe of why the well blew out.
HARRISBURG — As workers on a Bradford County drilling site continued to prepare the now-stable well for a final protective seal, state environmental officials took a step toward assessing penalties for the accident.
Well-control specialists spent most of the day relieving pressure within the Chesapeake Energy well, a procedure that both company and Department of Environmental Protection officials said was not unusual. Those efforts were suspended late Friday afternoon, as rain began to fall, according to Chesapeake.
Company spokesman Rory Sweeney said they made “slow progress” toward completely plugging the well Friday, noting that no additional wastewater or gas had escaped since those leaks were stemmed Thursday evening.
Procedures to relieve well pressure are “something that is expected at this stage in the process” and raised no immediate concerns, DEP spokesman Dan Spadoni said.
Once the final seal is in place, Chesapeake can begin an investigation of why the well blew out during hydraulic fracturing late Tuesday night. That wellhead malfunction resulted in thousands of gallons of fracking wastewater spewing back to the surface, with some trickling into a tributary to Towanda Creek.
The well was continuing to leak wastewater Wednesday afternoon, when workers were able to put the briny fracking fluid in containers on the well pad. Neither the DEP nor company officials have estimated how much wastewater entered the tributary, though initial Chesapeake testing showed “minimal, if any” impacts on the waterway.
Incident reports posted on the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency’s website stated that “approximately 30,000 gallons of fresh water leaked out of a gas well and into a secondary containment area in Leroy Township.” A report issued Thursday also states that there are “no life safety or environmental concerns” from the accident.
A PEMA spokesman did not return a request Friday for additional information.
Chesapeake said it would account for the spilled wastewater as the investigation gets under way. “We’re not done here when the well is finally sealed,” Sweeney said.
For DEP officials, who have been involved in the accident response, the next investigatory steps are under way. The agency issued a notice of violation to Chesapeake on Friday, Spadoni said.
In the notice, the DEP asked the company to submit an analysis of what caused the equipment failure. The notice also stated that Chesapeake was expected to “be in a stand-down mode on hydraulic fracturing” as officials review what happened.
The company said it halted all post-drilling activities, which include hydraulic fracturing, “in order to conduct thorough inspections of wellheads used in completion operations throughout the Marcellus Shale.”
But environmental advocates from PennFuture called on DEP Acting Secretary Michael Krancer to shut down all Chesapeake sites until the agency conducts its review.
Two Bradford County lawyers representing local residents who say they have contamination-related ailments made a similar plea Friday.
Spadoni said the DEP would “evaluate the information that is provided to us by Chesapeake” and decide what additional steps may be necessary.