Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 15, 2020 at 8:41

Seems there is some missing context in the article regarding testing and the fact that methane was not tested for some unknown reason.  This seems strange and although methane is the main element in natural gas, there are others: h2o, co2 and potentially a number of others.  All these constituent elements make up a "finger print" that varies by source.  It is a fairly simple process to compare the chemical foot print in the aquifer with that in the formation being produced in the wells.  Pennsylvania, in addition to other areas of the nation including Caddo Parish where I live, have numerous shallow pockets of natural gas that are not economic and therefore are not a target of wells and lie close in depth to potable water aquifers.  The one case of methane in well water in Caddo during the Haynesville Shale play was tested and revealed to be not connected to wells in the vicinity.  The chemical footprints did not match. Methane is formed whenever plant and animal matter decays. Until I see some test results, I will withhold judgement.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron Moak on June 15, 2020 at 8:51

I am sure there will be evidence presented, and the ultimate verdict will be rendered. Hopefully, petroleum landmen will not need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 15, 2020 at 9:15

All it takes is a simple test by an unbiased third party.  Josh Fox's Gasland was a hit piece without factual support.  His hope was/is that most people don't know the fact that many faucets can be lighted even those far from any historic or producing wells due to naturally occurring deposits of methane.  The chances of the gas in a deep well contaminating well water are quite slim but can occur.  I have heard of a handful of cases where the two samples matched.  Before either side runs off declaring victory, the results of the test should be made public.  Pretty simple and straight forward actually, it's a match or it is not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aaron Moak on June 15, 2020 at 9:48

They were caught, and hopefully they will pay. The public and political concensus is toward not having the problem, period. New day is coming.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 15, 2020 at 9:52

Maybe, maybe not.  Public and political consensus do not determine the outcome of trials.  Any reasonable judge will proceed with proper testing and let the results inform the verdict.

Permalink Reply by Aaron Moak on June 15, 2020 at 10:13

Of course, public and political factors should not have an influence in the trial’s verdict. I did not assert that, though it makes a good straw dog to maintain some semblance of control for an industry promoter. The public and political environment do have a big influence in the future operations of Cabot and others. Not much public or political consensus for extracting oil and gas in this country. At the very least, the tax gimmicks and subsidies will vanish while the regulation will come with a vengance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 15, 2020 at 10:47

I recognize your passion .....and your lack of knowledge regarding the specific subject of the compliant in the suit.  I am an independent landman whose clients are mineral owners.  I do not work for the industry and from time to time I provide litigation research and expert testimony in suits where my clients are the plaintiffs and the industry is the defendant. 

You forfeit any perceived claim to credibility when you revert to personal attacks against those who you do not know.  I feel sure you will get back to us with the verdict in due time.  I look forward to hearing it.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page