Rockman wrote:
Also did you know that in some areas where folks were complaining about their water quality the state of PA had ruled it unfit for consumption long before the first well was frac'd in the area? Their water was naturally crap. And did you see the video of a guy in the Texas Barnett shale play flaming NG from the end of his water hose? A huge hit on YouTube. He filed a lawsuit against Ranger that frac'd a well close to him. And he wasn't lying either: the methane was really coming from his well. So Ranger asked the Texas Rail Road Commission to investigate and they found his fresh water was badly contaminated with methane...and had been naturally for decades before. He actually has his garden hose hooked up to a methane vent line he had installed long ago. The judge immediately threw the case out and the Texas Rangers had considered filing criminal fraud charges against him. But they decided to pass and let Ranger go after his lying ass. Which, uncharacteristically, Ranger did file a civil suite. Most companies just let such situations settle down and move on. But apparently the folks didn't appreciate the many thousands in legal fees they had to pay and took personal the attempt to soil their reputation.
I think that you don't have your facts straight. I think you mean Steve Lipsky. At the very least your timeline is wrong, and there is a lot of information missing.
Basically as near as I can tell. These are the facts
All the drama began in 2010 after Steve Lipsky noticed some strange things about the water coming out of his private well at his home in Parker County. For instance, he could light it on fire. The EPA first issued an emergency order against Range Resources to better monitor the well and to provide drinking water to the Lipsky family and others who might be affected. Range resisted, so the Justice Department filed a complaint on behalf of the EPA in 2011.
Anyway both sides sued. Ranged filed it's defamation suit in 2011 for 3 million dollars. The EPA withdrew from the case for a while (they return in Dec 2013), and the Texas Railroad commision decided the methane was naturally occurring.
In Lipsky's lawsuit, which he lost, range claimed that using a garden hose implied that he said his water was flamable, but as you stated it was a vent for the well. A PVC pipe was used to make the same demonstration. There is no evidence as you state that this vent was a long term thing. The EPA allowed Range to test nearby wells and only found one with explosive amounts of methane. The story should end there right. Wrong
s
The TRC has reopened the complaint
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/09/in_parker_county_regulators_ar.phpIts victory before the commission, it appears, may not be the final word. EnergyWire has a scoop indicating that the commission is once again investigating Lipsky's and other water wells in Parker County. At least four homeowners say the methane contamination in their water is only getting worse.
An TRC inspection report from one of the homeowners.
http://www.eenews.net/assets/2013/09/18/document_ew_01.pdfThe EPA also released a report on their retreat from the case on Christmas eve so it would get a lot of coverage.
"Based on the evidence the EPA uncovered regarding the nature and source of the contamination in the residential wells," says inspector general's report, "the EPA determined that a Range Resources gas production well was the most likely contributor to the contamination."
This EPA inspector general's report was released to the public on December 24, timing that "shows the Obama administration is obviously embarrassed by its findings," Bruce Baizel, a director at environmental group Earthworks, said in a statement. "As they should be. The withdrawal of Obama's EPA is an abject failure of its mission to protect Americans' health and environment." Hey, maybe the EPA was just looking for an excuse to not have to go to that annoying relative's house on Christmas Eve!
This report was made not at the request of environmentalists but by the EPA critics on the other side of the ideological coin. Republicans in Congress had accused the EPA's regional office Texas of being too tough the gas industry. Those Republicans are now also predictably critical of this report. The EPA just can't win.
Anyway as stated above the gas leak appears to be getting worse, and our favorite Duke University professor is involved also. Isotopic studies have identified the gas as the same as what comes from the Range Resources well.
From Bloomberg
"The leak continues and it's spreading," Geoffrey Thyne, an independent scientist who was commissioned to work the case with EPA, tells The Associated Press. "I can say, based on the current data, there are at least two other wells that show the same source ... which is the Range well."
Range has always contended that the gas is naturally occurring, originating in shallow, gas-bearing rock called the Strawn formation. But by comparing Strawn gas and Barnett gas with the gas found in several homeowners' water wells, Thyne has concluded that it isn't just bubbling up. This gas came from the Barnett, and its only conduit would be Range.
Rob Jackson, a Duke University researcher, is working on a big study on Parker County for the National Science Foundation. His testing has identified concentrations of gas in the well water at up to 10 times the federal threshold.
From Bloomberg roughly the same story.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/epa-s-reliance-on-driller-data-for-water-irks-homeowners.htmlHomeowner Perdue’s case illustrates the discrepancies in the results. Range’s consultants found 4.2 milligrams per liter of methane in her water in a test taken in mid 2012, and 20 milligrams in November 2012. Duke’s tests a month later found a value of 54.7.
Perdue said technicians for Range collected samples differently than those for Duke -- taking it from a vented holding tank in one instance -- and didn’t capture all the dissolved gas found in the well.
Separate from questions about the amount of gas present is what caused it to appear. Range says the gas is naturally occurring, and the state so far has agreed.
A consultant hired by the EPA as part of its initial investigation in 2010 concluded that the gas was chemically identical to that being extracted by Range. The consultant, Geoffrey Thyne, analyzed the isotopes of the gas in Lipsky’s wells and the gas from Range’s production wells, and found them to be a match.
Thyne, who was criticized by the gas industry for his findings, said he’s now doing follow-up analysis to see whether those initial results hold up.
“I’ve seen no data that makes me want to change my original opinion,” Thyne said in an interview.
So the story is somewhat different than as you reported it.