Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dbob on March 22, 2011 at 15:08

We already have a thread regarding the earlier portions of this saga.  Check it out here:

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/driller-denies-that-it

 

There are links to some of the background/other information.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on March 22, 2011 at 15:26

Yes!... Very Interesting!  The Houston Chronicle had a piece on its web page but it didn't have as many details/quotes as the Tribune article included.  I've also been following the Range discussion before posting on the main site.  Sorry.  Will check it out now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on March 22, 2011 at 18:54

Reply by dbob on January 21, 2011 at 10:00pm

For those still following, here is an excellent article:

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-e...

 

...

Your task: Pin the presence of methane on Range Resources by trying to prove its wells in the Barnett represent the source of the natural gas in the water wells.

On Dec. 7, 2010, that’s precisely the argument that EPA put forth in issuing an unprecedented “emergency order” -- demanding, among other things, that Range plug up its wells and go home.

Just one problem: The isotopic analysis EPA used as the basis for its order doesn’t include a word about nitrogen; EPA never ran those tests.

Fortunately, experts from Weatherford Labs in Texas did. And at a hearing of the Texas Railroad Commission in Austin this week, those experts testified that the methane found in those private water wells in question came from the Strawn, not the Barnett.

What that means in practical geological terms is that Range isn’t (and in fact couldn’t be) responsible for the occurrence of methane in those wells – it has no wells in the Strawn.

What it means in practical political terms is that EPA’s analysis and subsequent actions were, are and continue to be wrong – or at least “fundamentally flawed,” according to testimony from Weatherford expert Dr. Mark McCaffrey.

Of course, EPA itself didn’t have a whole lot to say about that or anything else this week. It didn’t show for the hearing. Nor did it submit even a single page of data or testimony in support of its case.

In fairness, it’s a case that’s becoming increasingly difficult to make, at least with a straight-face.

With its isotopic analysis now exposed as incomplete, the only card EPA has left in the deck is to assert that methane migration into Parker Co. wells is an entirely new phenomenon, something that started happening only after Range began drilling wells into the Barnett over the past couple years.

But Bob Patterson of the Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District -- someone who, it can be presumed, knows a thing or two about the quality, composition and history of groundwater in the area – told Platts earlier this month that natural gas has been in the water “at least since the late '60s or early '70s.”

A 2003 report by independent water experts -- re-introduced at the hearing -- confirms that fact. Of course, because EPA decided not to show this week, we can’t say for certain whether the agency even knows about it. The report, or Bob.

Remarkably, even as its case (and credibility) continues to erode, EPA this week asked the Department of Justice to impose a $16,500-a-day penalty on Range for failing to comply with an order that EPA itself has neither the interest nor ability to defend or explain in an open, on-the-record forum.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/01/chris-tucker-e...

 

.....

 

(re-posted in it's entirety, emphasis mine, because all of the coverage i have seen on this so far fails to mention these facts)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on March 23, 2011 at 0:31

Excellent submission. thanks!  if i start adding what i think about government... i might be asked not to come back and post comments.  jhh

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TheCommish on March 23, 2011 at 10:54

You can watch the hearing here:

 

http://www.texasadmin.com/agenda.php?confid=RRC_OC032211&dir=tx...

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark on August 29, 2011 at 1:24

From the latest NewsLine (Texas Alliance of Energy Producers newsletter).  'Judge Denies Rich "Expert" Witness Status'.

 

Judge Tome Lowe of 236th District Court, Tarrant County, granted a motion by Range Resources to exclude Alisa Rich, the person who has been conducting air and water samples in the Barnett Shale area, as an expert witness in the case of Law vs. Range.

Range's motion  stated that Alisa Rich is dishonest, biased, and wholly unqualified; and Rich has never been qualified as an "expert" by any court.

Additionally, Range Resources filed a counterclaim against landowner Stive Lipsky and a third party claim against Rich.  Lipsky claimed that his water well in Parker County was contaminated by drilling activity conducted by the company.  Lipsky contacted Rich to test the water and air on his property.

Range contends that Lipsky and Rich conspired to produce misleading test results to get the EPA involved in the case.  The RRC had been investigating their allegations for several months when EPA issued its emergencey order.

Range said it has spent more thatn $3 million to defend itself, and it asks the court to award the $3 million to Range from Lipsky and Rich.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kat Bloomfield on August 29, 2011 at 5:09

Wow.  Those are some serious charges. 

Isn't it disgusting how its the shenanigans that skew it all.  Science is science and try as man might to alter it, science always reveals facts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on August 29, 2011 at 5:33

Its probably legitimate to question her qualifications:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/09/3209944/flower-mound-scient...

"In its legal fight against the EPA, Range cited an Aug. 12, 2010, e-mail that Rich sent Lipsky in which she outlined a "strategy" to get the EPA involved in the well-contamination issue. The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the oil and gas industry, already was investigating."

and

"
According to a transcript of the March 12, 2008 meeting of the Flower Mound Oil and Gas Board of Appeals, of which Rich was a member, she said: "I have a Ph.D. in air pollution control design" and, moments later, "I have a doctorate in air pollution."

Rich, in a deposition taken Jan. 18, said, "That was a misstatement that I made ... and I have recanted that statement since then.""

• ▶ Reply