Seeking Alpha

Encana (ECA -5.7%) shares stumble after the EPA says in a draft report the aquifer in a Wyoming...

Encana (ECA -5.7%) shares stumble after the EPA says in a draft report the aquifer in a Wyoming gas field operated by the company "contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing." EPA says Encana has been funding the provision of alternate water supplies to the area since 2010. (earlier)
Comments (36)
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    Once again, EPA chooses the wrong side and Obama is there to cheer them on, putting a huge monkey wrench into what should be our growth into an energy independent nation. We now have a war on energy and on new jobs.
    All this on the same day that Iran put our downed drone on display. Should we rely on the middle east for energy?
    I'm disgusted.
    8 Dec 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • Financial Insights
    , contributor
    Comments (945) | Send Message
     
    So we should sacrifice clean water for careless natural gas production? Makes a whole lot of sense.
    8 Dec 2011, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    It would make sense if the EPA can substantiate the claim, but they can't. There is no direct correlation between the fracking and the discharge they allege came from it. The EPA is politcally motivated and they are obstructionists, not our protectors. The EPA is the worst of Jimmy Carter's legacy.
    8 Dec 2011, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • Conventional Wisdumb
    , contributor
    Comments (1802) | Send Message
     
    "compounds likely associated with gas production"

     

    Double non-confirmative. Sounds like the typical weasel word disclaimer on an infomercial.

     

    Junk science!
    8 Dec 2011, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • strutzma
    , contributor
    Comments (44) | Send Message
     
    FYI: EPA is a Nixon legacy
    8 Dec 2011, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (694) | Send Message
     
    My understanding is that the aquifer in question is fed from surface water rather than ground water. Also, a lot of the compounds found are not associated with fracturing and from ground or surface sources.
    8 Dec 2011, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    I read that the digging took place under the aquifer, where hydrocarbons already exist.
    8 Dec 2011, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    "Also, a lot of the compounds found are not associated with fracturing and from ground or surface sources."

     

    It doesn't matter if other compounds are found, if trace amounts of the chemicals in question are lethal.
    9 Dec 2011, 02:24 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    Ricard, you're dissembling. The question is not if they're lethal, it's how did they come to be there.

     

    You've accepted the spin the EPA has put on this. If you read the report there's two things to note that the EPA admits. The first is that folks are drilling drinking water wells into areas co-located with hydrocarbons, and that (as the EPA puts it), "Given the area’s complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to ground water contamination, ..."

     

    The EPA could just as well had said that what's been found is consistent with groundwater contamination from human activities (i.e. motor vehicles, anti-freeze, household wastes, etc.) combined with extracting water from an aquifer co-located with nat gas, NGLs, and other hydrocarbons. This is not that unusual - much of Pennsylvania is also well-known for hydrocarbons being near the surface and co-located with water sources.

     

    If the EPA were at all honest rather than in blind pursuit of an agenda they'd have acknowledged that what's been found is consistent with a number of possible scenarios.
    9 Dec 2011, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    "Ricard, you're dissembling. "

     

    Completely unfounded accusation. I own ECA, so I have every reason to hope that the EPA findings are untrue or in other ways inaccurate.

     

    " The first is that folks are drilling drinking water wells into areas co-located with hydrocarbons, and that (as the EPA puts it), "Given the area’s complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to ground water contamination, ...""

     

    1) ECA is providing the water. Regardless of how or why those chemicals got in there, the solution is of course for ECA to provide clean water via other, more expensive means, which apparently has proven to be more difficult than anticipated. This is a negative, regardless of how you try to spin it.

     

    2) The language you have quoted is nowhere to be found in the draft report, but is part of the press release. Furthermore your statement about water wells collocated with hydrocarbons is simply not a factor in fracking, where the drilling sites are well beneath ground water depths. What is in question is whether or not activities far beneath ground water depths can be responsible for contamination. The "proximity" factor is not about collocation, but whether the depths of fracking can still affect water sources well above the drilling sites.

     

    Therefore, the EPA cannot say "that what's been found is consistent with groundwater contamination from human activities (i.e. motor vehicles, anti-freeze, household wastes, etc.) combined with extracting water from an aquifer co-located with nat gas, NGLs, and other hydrocarbons", because there is no collocation.

     

    " much of Pennsylvania is also well-known for hydrocarbons being near the surface and co-located with water sources."

     

    This demonstrates how little you know about shale gas. Pennsylvania is also a source of shale gas, but what you are describing is not shale gas. Hydrocarbons from shale gas require the advanced technique called "fracking" precisely because they are so difficult to access due to their depths. They are not near the surface as you purportedly claim.

     

    The entire reason the EPA is involved is because it has come as a surprise that the fracking activities miles below the surface and ground water levels is purportedly causing ground water contamination, regardless of the integrity of the seal.
    9 Dec 2011, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    You're correct the quote was from the press release, but the same info is in the report. The press release isn't trying to contradict the report.

     

    And that having these water wells co-located with hydrocarbons having nothing to do with fracking is exactly my point. They'd be there even without the fracking, thus the finding is that the water wells should not have been drilled there in the first place. At most the fracking is only making a bad situation worse - it's not the underlying cause.
    9 Dec 2011, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    "And that having these water wells co-located with hydrocarbons having nothing to do with fracking is exactly my point."

     

    You have completely misconstrued not only what I said, but also the facts pertaining to horizontal drilling. The entire reason why shale gas has become accessible to horizontal drilling and fracking techniques is because the technology has advanced to such a level as to be able to access these deposits which are WELL BELOW THE WATER TABLE. THERE IS NO COLLOCATION.

     

    What the EPA is trying to determine is not whether or not there are hydrocarbons in the water, but whether or not there are hydrocarbons directly pertaining to the fracking process in the water, i.e. they are looking for fracking solutions, or any other highly toxic compound that can be directly associated with fracking.

     

    In this sense, by far the most pressing issue that came from the EPA press release (emphasis added):

     

    "EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS..."
    9 Dec 2011, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    <Therefore, the EPA cannot say "that what's been found is consistent with groundwater contamination from human activities (i.e. motor vehicles, anti-freeze, household wastes, etc.) combined with extracting water from an aquifer co-located with nat gas, NGLs, and other hydrocarbons", because there is no collocation.>

     

    As the EPA stated there's an issue with groundwater contamination in the proximity of the water wells. That would account for some of the contaminates. The co-location is an issue with the methane and NGLs as stated in the press release and report. So you have contamination coming from two different sources. The EPA is purposefully being deceptive in not stating that these sources would also be consistent with the contaminate findings.

     

    As far as Pennsylvania, it's quite common there to find natural petroleum seeps at the surface and hydrocarbons in the water supplies. That's why the oil industry's first boom was in Pennsylvania. Fracking had nothing to do with bringing these hydrocarbons into the water supply or to the surface as the technology did not exist at the time.
    9 Dec 2011, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    The press release said nothing about collocation. That is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Methane found in conjunction to fracking fluids is indeed a concern, but they are not looking for specifically methane in the water supply.

     

    About Pennsylvania, you agree that what you are referring to has nothing to do with shale gas. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the current EPA investigation or to investors in shale gas companies like ECA.
    9 Dec 2011, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    "Ricard, you're dissembling. The question is not if they're lethal, it's how did they come to be there."

     

    I need to point out that every other person that has posted on this thread - yourself especially - is indeed dissembling the pertinent matter at hand - the presence of highly toxic fracking fluids in the water supply. Whatever else is in the water is irrelevant, because whatever else is in the water is going to be less toxic than even minute concentrations of this fluid.

     

    Because these fluids are highly guarded trade secrets, the presence of anything that resembles these fluids is going to be indicative of unintended seepage from the shale gas wells, meaning that this type of drilling would constitute an environmental hazard to any community living nearby. Therefore, there is no reason to ask about "how" this fluid got there, unless you think someone is intentionally dumping this fluid into EPA test wells to sabotage test results. I know there are people on SA that are off the deep end in conspiracy-theory land that might actually take such a possibility seriously, but those individuals aside, these preliminary results do not bode well for widespread shale gas drilling.

     

    If you believe there are secondary and/or tertiary issues regarding these test results, please note them. Regardless, none of the arguments presented thus far detract from the fact that the EPA has found toxic compounds directly related to fracking in places that would constitute a health hazard for nearby communities.
    10 Dec 2011, 02:05 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    Ricard, here's a quote from the press release:
    "The draft findings announced today are specific to Pavillion, where the fracturing is taking place in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells – production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country."

     

    It's clear you haven't bothered to read even the press release. The report materials go into more detail. The report states the shale formation (Wind River Formation) extends from the surface to 1036 meters. It's in that formation that the fracking is taking place, and it's in that formation that the water wells are drilled. They are co-located. In fact in one of the report presentations they describe a domestic well suffered a blowout at 159 meters while being drilled in 2005. You can't get any more co-located than that!
    11 Dec 2011, 04:19 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    You're contradicting yourself. In an earlier post you claimed the following:
    "Fracking compounds are trade secrets. No one but the companies that created them know exactly what is in them."

     

    So if that's true then how is the EPA claiming they're finding fracking fluids? They can't find something that can't be identified. The truth is they've not claimed they found fracking fluids. What they claim is they've found contaminates that are believed to be consistent with fracking. However as the EPA acknowledges these contaminates could be coming from groundwater contamination from human sources at the surface.
    11 Dec 2011, 04:39 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    "Therefore, there is no reason to ask about "how" this fluid got there, unless you think someone is intentionally dumping this fluid into EPA test wells to sabotage test results."

     

    Ricard, if you understood this issue you'd know that's precisely why the EPA test wells were drilled. They were drilled into the gas production zone to pick up the chemicals from the gas production activities to establish a signature that could be compared to what is being found near the domestic water wells. So yes, fracking injected these fluids, and the EPA wells were designed to suck up whatever remained from the fracking operation as well as ongoing gas production.

     

    To wit, from the report:
    "Detection of elevated levels of methane and diesel range organics
    (DRO) in deep domestic wells located close to one or more gas
    production wells prompted EPA to install 2 deep monitoring wells in
    June 2010 to differentiate potential deep (hydraulic fracturing) versus shallow (e.g., pits) sources of ground-water contamination."

     

    And note again the co-location reference. These deep domestic water wells are located close to the gas production wells in the shale formation in which the gas and any NGLs reside. The water is being pulled from the same formation. This is a very unique situation.
    11 Dec 2011, 04:57 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    "EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS..."

     

    Yes and that's what those wells were designed to do. You clearly haven't read the report. As I explained previously that's why these wells were drilled into the fracking zone where the gas production is being done. If you kept reading in that paragraph you'd find the following, "EPA is concerned about the movement of contaminants within the aquifer and the safety of drinking water wells over time." You see, the aquifer is in the same Wind River shale formation co-located with the hydrocarbons and the extraction of said hydrocarbons.
    11 Dec 2011, 05:07 AM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    1) The language in the report substantiates not only my claim, but claim in the headline (they are the same).

     

    2) You have yet to draw any material from the report itself, yet see fit to continually accuse others of not reading the report. It is becoming clearer that YOU are the one who has yet to read the report, and are heavily relying on only the press release to substantiate your points, all the while claiming to have read the report.

     

    3) Your quotation FROM THE PRESS RELEASE is indeed the prime concern of the EPA, but you are unable to interpret it correctly. They are concerned about migration of toxic chemicals or hydrocarbons from the production sites over time, as this would be proof of unintended seepage from these production sites into other areas that would become toxic for communities living nearby. THERE IS NO MENTION OF COLLOCATION of ground water supplies and production sites, again, it is a figment of your imagination. The collocation is between the ground water and the aquifer.
    11 Dec 2011, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    The EPA is claiming that they have found chemicals resembling fracking fluids. The majority of these compounds have been analyzed, but what makes them trade secrets and thus difficult to confirm is what has escaped analysis. The known chemicals are already highly toxic.

     

    I have come to the separate conclusion that these are indeed fracking fluids, because I cannot find any other possible source of man-made chemicals that would contaminate ground water in this fashion. In my opinion, it is not a leap of faith to come to this conclusion, although it would not be strictly speaking scientifically accurate.

     

    There is no contradiction. The fault lies in your unfamiliarity with the subject matter.

     

    If you thoroughly read the report, you will note that they have done other studies not associated with the results of this report that have indeed documented contamination from human sources at the surface. THESE SOURCES ARE ALSO A DIRECT RESULT OF THE SHALE GAS DRILLING PROCESS and ECA has had to take other preventative steps to remedy this source of contaminants as well. However, that is not directly pertinent to the draft report - it is merely background information provided in the report.
    11 Dec 2011, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    1) Why do you continually cite the press release? Is it because you have not even bothered to read the actual report? Why do you accuse others of not reading the report, when it is clear this accusation clearly lies at your feet?

     

    2) The press release sums up the report. Of course I have read the press release. What I doubt is your understanding of the subject matter at hand, because you have continually misinterpreted the findings of this report, and cannot interpret even the simple language of the press release in adequate fashion.

     

    3) Please find the quote in the report that specifically lists how many hundreds of feet of solid rock separate the deepest level of the water wells, and the shallowest level of the production site. Then try to lay on this bullshit, completely erroneous claim of collocation again.

     

    This is my last response to you. You are clearly trying to get others to do your own work, because you are clearly too lazy to do so.
    11 Dec 2011, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    This is not a unique situation. There is no collocation. Reread the report and find the maxiumum depths of the water wells, and the minimum depths of the production sites. There is a proximity issue, but not a collocation issue. If the drilling sites were collocated with the ground water sources, tests would not even need to be conducted...of course there would be contamination. The entire reason why these deep well tests were conducted was to measure the possibility of seepage from these production sites, which are separated from the ground water by what was thought to be a formidable barrier of impenetrable earth and rock.

     

    Pit contamination is relatively easy to deal with compared to any potential contamination arising from the actual drilling. If the drilling itself is causing unintended seepage, then that means shale gas drilling will have to be limited to naturally uninhabitable areas, away from nature preserves, etc.
    11 Dec 2011, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    BTW, you would have received a friendlier, more objective manner of response from me, if not for your accusatory, hypocritical, and ultimately unfounded rhetoric:

     

    "Ricard, you're dissembling. "
    " You clearly haven't read the report. "
    "You're contradicting yourself."
    "It's clear you haven't bothered to read even the press release." (even though I have repeatedly quoted from this press release)
    11 Dec 2011, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    No the language in the report does not substantiate your claims. In fact I've quoted from the report materials themselves, which you've clearly not read nor have you quoted.

     

    The most glaring example of your ignorance here is the citing of the chemicals found in the EPA wells being proof that domestic water wells are contaminated from the gas production. That's absolute nonsense. The EPA wells were drilled into the fracking and gas production zone to sample the water from that zone to then COMPARE with the samples from the domestic water wells. I don't know how this can be made more clear for you. The EPA wells found exactly what you'd expect to find in the facking zone.

     

    Now to go back to my original point. The EPA could have just as well stated in the press release that the chemicals found are also consistent with groundwater contamination from surface sources due to human activities. They could also have referred to the historical record in the report "suggesting the presence of natural gas in ground water at depths used for domestic water supply prior to extensive commercial development." The press release doesn't mention either of these findings because they were sensationalizing the press release to dupe folks like you into drawing a conclusion that the report doesn't make because you can't be bothered to look beyond the superficial. That's my complaint with the press release - it shouldn't have been used to deceive the gullible.
    11 Dec 2011, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    "THERE IS NO MENTION OF COLLOCATION of ground water supplies and production sites, again, it is a figment of your imagination."

     

    There is not only mention of it Ricard, but it's why the EPA was called in in the first place. You don't know this because you can't be bothered to read the report. Here it is from the report again:

     

    "Detection of elevated levels of methane and diesel range organics
    (DRO) in deep domestic wells located close to one or more gas
    production wells prompted EPA to install 2 deep monitoring wells in
    June 2010 to differentiate potential deep (hydraulic fracturing) versus shallow (e.g., pits) sources of ground-water contamination."
    11 Dec 2011, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    Wow. Just wow. How can you dissemble more than you are currently. I don't think it is possible.

     

    ". They could also have referred to the historical record in the report "suggesting the presence of natural gas in ground water at depths used for domestic water supply prior to extensive commercial development." "

     

    That is not the focus of their investigation. The focus of their investigation is whether or not the current drilling activity is causing an environmental hazard. They found evidence of this, and published it. For some reason, you are ignoring all of this evidence, and insisting that the EPA publish pedestrian findings about asphalt and anti-freeze present in the water supply.

     

    "The EPA wells were drilled into the fracking and gas production zone to sample the water from that zone to then COMPARE with the samples from the domestic water wells."

     

    Ok, let's go with your train of reasoning. Now, if water from both these places contain similar toxins indicative of seepage from fracking, we would have a problem wouldn't we?

     

    However, that's not what they did. They drilled into the aquifer (emphasis added):

     

    "EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells IN THE AQUIFER indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels.""

     

    I know you have your own shady agenda you are attempting to promulgate, but it would help if you learned how to read at a 5th grade level.
    11 Dec 2011, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    Ricard, you're clearly not willing to address the facts. I've cited both the press release and the report materials. You've not cited the report once. If you believe the EPA is lying in that quote from the press release then present your evidence to the contrary. Here's a quote on co-location from the report yet again:

     

    "Detection of elevated levels of methane and diesel range organics
    (DRO) in deep domestic wells located close to one or more gas
    production wells prompted EPA to install 2 deep monitoring wells in
    June 2010 to differentiate potential deep (hydraulic fracturing) versus shallow (e.g., pits) sources of ground-water contamination."
    11 Dec 2011, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    <<3) Please find the quote in the report that specifically lists how many hundreds of feet of solid rock separate the deepest level of the water wells, and the shallowest level of the production site.>>

     

    I won't find any of that in the report, which is why you can't produce a quote from the report supporting your claim.

     

    At this point you're getting comical. From the report:
    "The Wind River Formation consists of laterally discontinuous interbedded layers of sandstones and shale with coarsegrained
    meandering stream channel deposits (Osiensky et al. 1984).

     

    There is not an impervious barrier of "solid rock" as you claim. This is a sedimentary formation of permeable layers. There is no granite or basalt here. You have no clue as to the geology.

     

    Also the report states that the domestic water wells extend BELOW the casing depth of some of the gas production wells, and in some cases only about 130 meters separates the fracking zone from the deepest water wells.

     

    <<This is my last response to you. You are clearly trying to get others to do your own work, because you are clearly too lazy to do so.>>

     

    No, that's your last response because you've found you can't successfully distort a report that you haven't read.
    11 Dec 2011, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    <<3) Please find the quote in the report that specifically lists how many hundreds of feet of solid rock separate the deepest level of the water wells, and the shallowest level of the production site.>>

     

    "I won't find any of that in the report, which is why you can't produce a quote from the report supporting your claim."

     

    You won't find it because you're either too stupid or too lazy to do it yourself.

     

    FROM THE REPORT:

     

    "Hydraulic fracturing in gas production wells occurred as shallow as 372 meters below ground surface with associated surface casing as shallow as 110 meters below ground surface. Domestic and stock wells in the area are screened as deep as 244 meters below ground surface."

     

    "Detection of elevated levels of methane and diesel range organics (DRO) in deep domestic wells prompted the Agency to install 2 deep monitoring wells screened at 233 - 239 meters (MW01) and 293 - 299 meters (MW02) below ground surface, respectively, in June 2010 to better evaluate to deeper sources of contamination. "

     

    There's about 200-300 feet (80 meters) of earth between the deep monitoring wells, and the shallowest point of drilling by ECA. THERE IS NO COLLOCATION. NO ONE IS MAKING THE CLAIM OF COLLOCATION EXCEPT YOU. BTW, this was on the first page of the abstract...it didn't even require digging through the report, meaning that you've yet to bother looking even at the overview of the report.

     

    "No, that's your last response because you've found you can't successfully distort a report that you haven't read."

     

    No, I've decided to continue commenting, because this is now becoming somewhat entertaining. When someone challenges me and flat out loses, and then continually challenges me because they cannot see the errors of their own ways, then I make it a point to allow them to prove their own idiocy to as much a level as they deem appropriate. I'll still allow for a happy ending and a (somewhat) graceful exit, but you really need to be more civil and less accusatory when entertaining a discussion.
    11 Dec 2011, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3406) | Send Message
     
    You said you were no longer going to respond. Were you just feeding us more bs?

     

    What you've provided is precisely what I've been claiming and quoting from the report. That's co-location.

     

    The second paragraph there referring to the "deep monitoring wells" are the EPA wells referred to and quoted earlier which you believed were evidence of domestic water well contamination when in fact they're the sample wells used to test the water at the fracking and gas production zone.

     

    Also you're still confused about which wells are which. The 200-300 feet is between the gas producing wells and the domestic water wells, not the EPA wells. I also note that you've changed your tale as it's no longer "solid rock" but now "earth". To be more precise it's sandstone, shale, and coarse-grained stream deposits which are permeable and thus not a barrier of "solid rock" as you claimed.

     

    To summarize here, the real issue is not a failure of fracking or of wrong-doing. None of this is a condemnation of ECA or of fracking technology. The real issues are:
    a) should drilling for nat gas have been approved in a permeable formation that also held the water aquifer, and
    b) should water wells be drilled in a formation where nat gas and other hydrocarbons were know to exist even prior to gas production, and
    c) should water wells be drilled in a permeable formation that extends to the surface and is thus subject to surface contamination.

     

    I'm going to cease commenting because I've made my points and you're clearly a person that will say things that you know you won't do or know to be false. (And unlike you when I say I won't comment further I actually mean it.)
    11 Dec 2011, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    "You said you were no longer going to respond. Were you just feeding us more bs?"

     

    As expected, your arguments have completely degenerated to the base form of petty name calling. Please continue if you must. It is proving that your base arguments were not only erroneous, but also that your main purpose was to troll.

     

    "(And unlike you when I say I won't comment further I actually mean it.)"

     

    Yes, I got the idea after the first few replies that you are not one to change your mind under any circumstance, even when you are dead wrong and the language and facts fly in the face of your reasoning.

     

    "Also you're still confused about which wells are which. The 200-300 feet is between the gas producing wells and the domestic water wells, not the EPA wells. "

     

    No, you are the one who is confused.

     

    The domestic water wells:
    "Domestic and stock wells in the area are screened as deep as 244 meters below ground surface"

     

    The deep monitoring wells:
    " 2 deep monitoring wells screened at 233 - 239 meters (MW01) and 293 - 299 meters (MW02) below ground surface"

     

    The actual drilling by ECA:
    "Hydraulic fracturing in gas production wells occurred as shallow as 372 meters below ground surface"

     

    "To summarize here, the real issue is not a failure of fracking or of wrong-doing."

     

    Finally we get a glimpse of your true agenda. I would like to believe this as I own ECA stock, but I actually know how to read.

     

    "a) should drilling for nat gas have been approved in a permeable formation that also held the water aquifer, and
    b) should water wells be drilled in a formation where nat gas and other hydrocarbons were know to exist even prior to gas production, and
    c) should water wells be drilled in a permeable formation that extends to the surface and is thus subject to surface contamination."

     

    Perhaps these are the issues for this specific case. Regardless, the findings of the EPA are not in doubt. There are traces of fracking fluids in places where they should not be, unless environmental hazards are allowed in livable communities. It is difficult to impossible to think of scenarios where fracking fluids materialized in ground water without the presence of shale gas drilling. There was a sizable, material barrier of earth and rock between the water wells and the production site. THERE WAS NO COLLOCATION. There were no egregious incidents in drilling or the case breaking, leading to the suspicion of seepage from fracking. This would explain why ECA dropped nearly 6% upon release of this news.
    11 Dec 2011, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    One more thing:

     

    You need to understand that I am not the mayor of this town. While I empathize with the people that have had to resort to government intervention to set their lives right, that is not my main concern here. I'm a shareholder in ECA, one of the most prominent shale gas drillers in North America, and I am concerned about whether or not fracking constitutes an environmental hazard. Is methane in the water relevant to this specific concern? No. Only methane associated with fracking, and more importantly, fracking fluids themselves, present in the water would be relevant to this specific concern, and the EPA has proved that this exact event has occurred here.

     

    The headline, my reasoning, and the drop in ECA share price all corroborate this telling of events.
    11 Dec 2011, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5057) | Send Message
     
    Yes, you are right Strutzma. It is that other useless agency, the Department of Energy that Jimmy Carter signed into law. Thanks for the correction.
    8 Dec 2011, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • diadochi
    , contributor
    Comments (208) | Send Message
     
    You might be singing a different tune if it was your ranch, and your water that was ruined. There are costs to fracking...it's not a free lunch. I'm not opposed to fracking, but remember what happened to BP on deep water drilling.
    8 Dec 2011, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • Ricard
    , contributor
    Comments (3829) | Send Message
     
    1) Fracking compounds are trade secrets. No one but the companies that created them know exactly what is in them.

     

    2) Whatever they are, these compounds are highly toxic. No one disputes this.

     

    3) If these man-made compounds are found in the proximity of natgas drilling sites, and no other man-made activity is remotely close to the water source that can provide a plausible "alibi," please tell me how these compounds got there.

     

    4) The actual language from the press release:

     

    "EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels."

     

    "EPA also updated its sampling of Pavillion area drinking water wells. Chemicals detected in the most recent samples are consistent with those identified in earlier EPA samples and include methane, other petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds. The presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production."

     

    5) I've done a research report that documented a man whose house literally exploded due to methane concentrations reaching critical levels in his basement, likely due to a fracking site located miles beneath his home. Remember, natural gas is naturally odorless and virtually undetectable without the right tools. Unlike liquids, it's entirely plausible that once released from the shale rock, it can seep through miles of solid earth instead of the intended drilling site.

     

    6) The communities close to these drilling sites are usually less than 5 digits in population, meaning they get nearly zero mainstream media coverage. Most are in Indian reservations, where the laws are different and generally do not offer the same levels of consumer protection the rest of the country enjoys.

     

    BTW, I'm long ECA, have been since $30. This has been a painful ride.
    9 Dec 2011, 12:46 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|