Tests show no environmental impact from gas drilling discharge
By DAVID THOMPSON - dthompson@sungazette.comSun Gazette
The state Department of Environmental Protection anticipates no adverse impact to the environment from a foamy discharge detected this week along Route 44 about one mile south of Waterville.
The discharge was found in spring water running off a hillside, under a road and into Pine Creek in Cummings Township.
"We see no environmental effects at this point," said Michael C. Welch, assistant director of the DEP's northcentral regional office.
The discharge was found on Monday. It was traced to a gas drilling site in the township operated by Warren-based Pennsylvania General Energy Co. LLC.
Company officials said the discharge was residue left over from drilling on a nearby five-well pad.
In addition to taking samples of the discharge, the DEP sent the company a notice of violation and set deadlines for it to respond to the notice. More...
10 comments:
Where are all the people that were running their mouths the other day when this was first published?
Just goes to show you that maybe people ought to keep their mouths shut until the facts come out.
Are you freaking serious? The crooked DEP "anticipates" no "adverse" impact and you believe it?
I bet you believed Clinton when he said he had no relations with that woman too.
Keep slurping up those GMO foods and shooting yourself full of vaccines while you're at it, after all the FDA sees no "adverse" effects.
No wonder this country is in the shape it is, bunch of sheep that believe anything they see on TV or hear from the government.
Poster 7:05....how about if someone brings a glass of the "foamy" water to your house and you give it a taste test????
If you had bothered to read the full article you would have seen this:
"There is no indication the discharge adversely impacted water wells in the vicinity of the site, he said.
However, that does not release the company from responsibility for the discharge, Welch said.
"They're still not allowed to release from the site in an uncontrolled fashion regardless of the material," Welch said."
Oh, what's the difference? When I change the oil in my truck, I dump it in the creek to get rid of it. Never seen any damage to anything...
Brother Nature,
You prove my point.
"There is no indication the discharge adversely impacted water wells in the vicinity of the site, he said".
Then why did everyone and their brother start listing the chemicals that were discharged when this was first published? Seems that was a bit premature and factually incorrect. There is a thing called libel. If you publish something that is malicious and meant to defame, that is lible.
Of course the DEP is going to give a NOV for this discharge. However, just because a NOV is issued, does not mean the company cannot protest it.
I also believe PGE would agree with the DEP that discharges off location are unacceptable. That doesn't mean the discharge was toxic.
What you are not seeing is the big picture. Obviously , the drilling has the ability to affect the water table if it put discharge into this nearby spring. How many times does this have to happen before it is a serious contamination? This isn't the first time it has happened and the majority of the drilling is still to come. Fracking has been proven to bring up minerals for thousands of feet down including radio active elements. DEP does not currently check for radio active contamination...just chemical contamination. You still didn't respond to my first statement though....would you drink a glass of that foamy water? Just because it didn't hurt anyone doesn't make it right.
Guess we are even because I see you didn't touch my point that libel is a punishable offense. Why are people fear mongering by listing chemicals that weren't even present in the "contaminated" area. Everyone justs jumps to judgement without the facts.
To answer your question, I would not drink a glass of foamy water just as I would not drink a glass of clear looking water out of a stream.
I drink water that is supplied from a town water source that leaves a film on sinks and showers. Somehow that seems fine. Funny how there is a difference of opinions on "safe" drinking water.
This is a YES or NO question. Answer ONLY yes or no.
Take a large square sponge (earth). Stick a straw 1/2 way into it (well casing). Carefully pour red cool-aid into the straw (frac water). Now suck the cool-aid back out. Did you get ALL the cool-aid?
Remember, answer ONLY "YES" of "NO".
I didn't see anything about any possible chemicals in any other posting regarding this discharge in the spring...must have missed that one. So how can you prove a libel suit against an anonymous poster??? Does anyone REALLY know what ALL of the companies use to frac wells and what comes back out of the ground as discharge? Do they know how much of the frac water remains in the ground according to the sponge example? We need air and water for our bodies to survive...natural gas is optional.
Could anyone tell me if this well was on STATE or private land.This will answer the questions about the tests that were conducted.Get my point?
Post a Comment