Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

And the winner is...

January 18, 2014

My favorite sentence from the comments posted about my letter (Shame on PCHPG, 12/15/13) is this gem, "Are you aware that thousands of people have their drinking water wells drilled into the......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-21-14 12:23 AM



There are many, many things happening as a result of fracking that are being kept quiet by the millionaires (seeking to become billionaires)many of whom own multiple newspapers and/or electronic media outlets.

Me? I predict major earthquake problems in the future.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-14 6:55 PM

Texas all of the contractors and the cleaning supplies I would have in my house if I needed to I could contact the companies and request a MSDS sheet. Those sheets describe all of the chemicals in those products. The Gas industry does not offer that information.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-14 3:34 PM

"If there is nothing to hide why not release the list" --BornHere


The problem was the methane gas that was coming from her well and how it was caused; she didn't show an oil or chemical skim in the water samples.

The oil and gas companies will hire a service company to come in and perform a stimulation, whether it is pumping a nitrogen stimulation, acid job, cement job, or a frack. They usually don't ask for nor does the service company provide a complete chemical breakdown.

Just like you may hire a painter to paint your walls, a roofer to put a new roof on your house, a flooring company to install new pad/carpet, they don't provide a complete chemical composition breakdown of everything they install. Even the products you have under your kitchen or bathroom sink don't give a complete chemical composition.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-19-14 8:04 AM

I don't trust anything Encana has to say, they also have received fines in Colorado for water contamination.

Ernst did give Encana permission to test the water as soon as they release the list of the fracking chemicals they use because everyone knows those chemicals are a BIG secret, that is when Encana refused to test the water. If there is nothing to hide why not release the list one would think they would want to prove their innocence and avoid lawsuits. This is the reason why people do not trust the industry or the government who backs them up.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 11:56 PM

From the Encana website (you can decide if they would tell the truth or blatantly lie).......

"Since becoming aware of Ms. Ernst's concerns, Encana has offered to test her water well on a number of occasions. To date, Encana has been unable to obtain Ms. Ernst's cooperation in order to perform the offered testing on her property."

"Stimulation when applied to CBM [coal bed methane] is different from what might be called traditional fracturing. That's because coal, unlike other rock formations, is naturally fractured. This natural fracturing is called a cleat system. In CBM stimulation, we pump nitrogen (N2) into a coal zone, which causes the natural cleats in the coal to be further interconnected. This allows the methane gas to flow into the well. Nitrogen is inert and safe - in fact, 78 percent of the air we breathe is composed of nitrogen."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 11:14 PM


1-3 BCF/section and production rates are typically about 120 mcf/day. The coal are predominately cased perforated and stimulated using nitrogen. The deeper, Lower Cretaceous coals of the Mannville Formation are currently being exploited in parts of Alberta at depths form about 500 to 2000 m."

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 11:13 PM


Coal deposits are widely distributed in Canada and occur in strata ranging in age from Carboniferous to Tertiary. Coalbed methane (CBM) exploration in Canada commenced in the early 1990s but until the year 2000 there was essential no commercial development. In Canada there are currently over 6000 producing coalbed methane wells almost all of which were drilled within the last four years with a total yearly production rate of about 0.5 BCF/day (HSC 470mmscfd +90mmscfd Mannville ). All commercial CBM production currently is restricted to the province of Alberta and 85% of current production occurs at depths ranging from 200 to 1000 m in coals of the Horseshoe Canyon and Belly River Formations. These coals have been estimated to have resources of about 36 TCF. With the strata there up to 10 major coal zones with cumulative net thickness of 15m to 20 m. These coals are dry and hence require no dewatering, have gas contents ranging generally from 1-3 BCF/section and

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 11:11 PM

BornHere, I did a little web browsing through a couple of dozen sites concerning the methane contamination of Jessica Ernst's water wells in Alberta, Canada. It is unfortunate that there is a problem and attempts need to be done to determine the cause and fix it. Maybe it is wellbore design/mechanics or the freshwater zones are naturally in communication with shallower coal seams; a little speculative reasoning on my part. However, there are definitely many differences to the Marcellus and gas production in PA and it just doesn't compare. I cut and pasted the following article and some of the highlighted differences; the gas comes from coal beds that are shallower, appear to have no appreciable impermeable layers over them and the wells are pressured up with nitrogen not the large volumes of water, chemicals, and sand that are used in PA. Very different geology.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 10:37 PM

People lit their faucets on fire long before gas drilling arrived. eriklatranyi

Didn't Ben Franklin set a swamp on fire?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 8:52 PM

Here's some more interesting reading.

Jessica Ernst an oil and gas consultant released a 93 page report documenting many cases of groundwater contamination from fracking operations.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 7:16 PM

No rick it's not hard at all. A friend of mine who works for the DEP is trying to talk me into taking the Sanitarian test, I took it a few years ago and only scored an 87, they prefer 90 or above I think I might try it again. Imagine me working for the DEP.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 6:47 PM

Hey Bornhere, it is not too hard to find them is it?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 6:19 PM


Care to comment on act 78? Do you have any object to extending the comment period?

Did you happen to attend the public meeting last Wed and if so, do you have any opinion on Doug McLinko's comments?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 6:19 PM

DEP Fines Chesapeake Energy $1M for Water Contamination on Private Property from Hydraulic Fracking Methods. See; Public Herald May 18, 2011

This is another document case.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 4:55 PM

erik, I have given my sources USATODAY

In Pa. the number of confirmed instances of water pollution in the eastern part of the state have dropped substantially in 2013, DEP spokeswoman Lisa Kasianowitz wrote in a email that 2 instances of drilling affecting water wells were CONFIRMED there last year in 2012.

Look up the GEE Family in Tioga County. Baseline was done before drilling and showed no presence of methane, after drilling the DEP determined that thermogenic methane damaged their water supply and could not be reversed and that SHELL was responsible for the methane migration. If you know where to look you can find this information on the DEP's website.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 3:46 PM

Mr. Parson's well was a case of long abandoned and undocumented oil wells, being improperly taken out of service.

There is also a possibility that the fracking company dumped excess frack fluid down one of the abandoned wells and into the aquifer.

Either way, it was bad practice, way back in 1984, that has been abandoned. Another reason the industry promotes regulations so such practices are never allowed.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 3:35 PM


I would like to see your sources so I can read about this.

Both the industry, the DEP and the EPA all say there has not been a case yet, despite over 1 million wells being hydraulically fractured.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 3:13 PM

For what it's worth, Methane in Drinking water is NOT Toxic. Wrote NODES permits for discharges of wastewater for 15+ years and if you ever read the rational for limits assigned for Toxicity, you would stop being afraid of parameters measured at parts per billion. Look up toxicity for any heavy metal and I'll bet you that you can find a food item in a Health Food store that is selling items with higher concentrations.

When treating frac water, I looked up some material on "salt" in water and discovered the worldwide movement to boycott Nestle chocolate--why? because of Mercury in their chocolate because of how Nestle makes their own Sodium Hydroxide to make chocolate--interesting reading and true.

Toxicity is in the eye of the beholder at times--Example--Blanchard Lake in Clinton county---every year the USF&WS wants to close it to fishing due to toxics in fish. Every year the PA F&B and PA DEP come up with different levels of toxics and refuse to shut the Lake do

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 12:43 PM

The meaning of confirm; prove, establish, validate, authenticate.

State regulators have CONFIRMED more than 100 well water contamination cases are caused by the oil and gas industry over the past 5 years.

Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas have had hundreds of complaints and many have been CONFIRMED as well water contamination from drilling.

And lets not forget Mr. Parson's Well Water. "The fracture fluid along with natural gas rendered the water well unusable", is a documented E.P.A. case

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 12:22 PM

I have only asked you questions and haven't actually advocated for a course of action. I already know the positions of groups like the RDA and Clean Streams on the issues so I thought I would ask you yours. I appreciate your frank respondes.

I think that most people feel as Ritty does.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 12:19 PM

"I hate to say this erik, but your mind seems to be completely shut to any possibility of detrimental environmental impact due to fracking..." - sideliner

Pot calling the kettle black? It seems like most people here have made up their minds and no amount of information will change them. The same is true on most subjects. Rather than looking at all the information and making a decision, most people make a decision and then look for data to back them up. To most people, it's not about finding the truth, it's about winning the debate. What a stupid and dangerous way to go through life.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 12:14 PM

rick said:

"Erik. The regulations are all over the map. The TRC has it's own. PA DEP has theirs. The Feds are still doing research."

Yes, and in Mexico they have their own rules and in each province of Canada they have their own rules.

What difference does it make?

Which rules are right and which are wrong? Please be specific.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 12:11 PM

Jerry asked:

"Erik, would you bury these drilling parts in your back yard and put your kids playset on top?"

What makes you think I would do that?

The issue is serious and it is being studied.

You want to do "something" but without any facts or data.

You propose actions driven by hysteria, not science.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 12:07 PM

Erik. The regulations are all over the map. The TRC has it's own. PA DEP has theirs. The Feds are still doing research. In all that I wrote this is the only thing you commented on?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-18-14 11:48 AM

Erik, would you bury these drilling parts in your back yard and put your kids playset on top? Maybe the answer is yes, because you feel that strongly that there is nothing to be concerned about. If that is the case then please say so.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 70 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web