Marcellus shale drilling is vertical then horizontal for thousands of feet

From Staff Report, Parkersburg News & Sentinel, January 16, 2019

PARKERSBURG — The West Virginia Supreme Court Tuesday heard arguments in an appeal of a lower court decision by residents who claimed Marcellus shale drilling has denied them the enjoyment of their property.

Deborah G. Andrews, Rodney and Katherine Ashcraft, Gregg D. McWilliams, Mary Mikowski and Robert and Loretta Siders filed a complaint in October 2013 alleging nuisances such as noise and odors against Antero Resources Corp. and Hall Drilling.

The claim was transferred from Ohio County Circuit Court to the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel in November 2014, which eventually ruled in favor of the defendants in October 2016.

At issue is horizontal well drilling and hydro-fracturing in the Marcellus Shale, which has caused the industrialization of rural West Virginia and noise, truck traffic, odors, dust contamination, light pollution and vibrations, among other things, the petitioners brief to the Supreme Court said.

Antero and Hall said the Mass Litigation Panel did not abuse its discretion by holding that petitioners failed to show they are entitled to relief and that the panel applied the correct legal standards concerning mineral owners’ and surface owners’ rights under West Virginia law.

“From what began as a toxic contamination case, petitioners now only claim annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience caused by noise, traffic on public roads, odors, dust, lights, and vibrations (collectively, ‘conditions’) allegedly resulting from horizontal drilling activities located in the vicinity of petitioners’ surface estates,” the Antero brief said.

Two friends of the court briefs were filed in support of Antero and Hall from the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association and from the Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia, and the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, the West Virginia Business and Industry Council, the West Virginia Coal Association, the Contractors Association of West Virginia, West Virginia Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, the West Virginia Manufacturers Association and the West Virginia Poultry Association.

“The issues petitioners seek to appeal would significantly impact the well-settled theories of property law and the sustainability of the Marcellus shale industry in West Virginia,” the chamber brief said. “Because such issues necessarily implicate West Virginia’s economic viability overall, including direct and indirect impacts on other industries … all have significant interests in the issues raised by the petitioners in this appeal.”

———————————————————————————

Supreme Court to rule on natural gas drilling nuisance question

From an Article by Jeff Jenkins, WV Metro News, January 16, 2019

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The state Supreme Court will make a much-anticipated decision in the coming months on the issue of natural gas drilling and whether the process is a public nuisance.

The Court heard an hour of oral arguments Tuesday on an appeal by a group of Harrison County property owners that claim horizontal drilling by Antero Resources is a nuisance. The plaintiffs lost in the lower court. The state’s Mass Litigation Panel found summary judgment in favor of Antero.

Plaintiff’s attorney Anthony Majestro argued Tuesday normal life has been disrupted. “These trucks are going by 100-a-day, 24-hours-a day. They are parked in front of my clients’ houses. Their engines are running, the big 18 wheelers, the hisses and noises, fumes coming off. That’s one of the primary causes of the nuisance,” Majestro said.

Monongalia County Circuit Judge Russell Clawges, appointed as a temporary justice for the case, asked Antero attorney W. Henry Lawrence if the panel’s ruling basically gives the drilling company a green light no matter what.

“Does not the panel’s order basically give your clients carte blanche to do whatever they want to, whenever they want to, however they want to, no matter what affect it may have on these plaintiffs?

“No,” Lawrence said. “The panel looked at the evidence presented to them and said the plaintiffs have not offered expert testimony that indicates that these activities are unreasonable or unnecessary in development of these minerals.”

Majestro said because it’s horizontal drilling, there’s no guarantee property owners are being properly compensated for what they have to endure. “Most of this drilling that’s being done and this nuisance that’s being created is being conducted to get gas that is not under my client’s property,” Majestro said.

The plaintiffs want their nuisance claims to go before a jury.

Lawrence said the panel looked through hundreds of pages of discovery in the case before making its decision. He said there were initial claims of contamination, physical damage and personal injury. He said the plaintiffs eventually withdraw their negligence claim. There were originally 22 plaintiffs and now there are seven. “None of these plaintiffs had well pads on their properties. There were several plaintiffs in the initial case (that did),” Lawrence said.

Majestro said the case should go before a jury and let it decide if drilling activities can cause a nuisance. He said there’s no doubt his clients have been negatively impacted. “There’s testimony the clients can’t sleep. There’s testimony they can’t sit on their front porch and talk. In addition, we have odors, fumes from these trucks that are burning diesel while they are parked around my client’s house and driving by,” Majestro said.

Lawrence said the wells in question are about 10 years old and represent some of Antero’s first wells in Harrison County. The lawsuits were originally filed in late 2013.

Two members of the Supreme Court, Justice Tim Armstead and Justice John Hutchison disqualified themselves from hearing the case. They were replaced by Clawges and Cabell County Circuit Judge Greg Howard.

### Our Fields, Our Forests, Our Rivers ### "No MVP"

Conservation groups are rallying against the Mountain Valley Pipeline

From an Article by Hilary Hanson, Huffington Post, 12/17/2016 

Environmental groups are voicing opposition to a proposed natural gas pipeline that would cut across the Appalachian Trail in Virginia and require clearing a previously protected corridor of forest.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline would transport natural gas from northwest West Virginia to southern Virginia, according to The Wilderness Society, which published an editorial this week saying the pipeline would set a “dangerous precedent.” That’s because construction would involve clearing a 125-foot-wide section that would cross 3.4 miles of forest protected under the Forest Service’s “roadless rule ― litigation meant to protect lands from road construction and logging.

“Some of the most iconic viewpoints, like Angels Rest, along the Appalachian Trail in Virginia will look out upon an ugly swath of destruction that dissects habitat and threatens waterways,” the Wilderness Society writes.

Specifically, the pipeline would cross Jefferson National Forest in West Virginia and Virginia, pass through the Appalachian National Scenic Trail Corridor and cross the Appalachian Trail near Virginia’s Peters Mountain Wilderness Area, according to the conservation group Wild Virginia.

Multiple environmental groups said this month that they refused to even comment on the government’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the project because the draft has so many errors.

Other concerns include the public safety of residents, businesses and community organizations that would find themselves in the “blast zone” — a radius of about 1,115 feet around the pipeline where an explosion could have a “significant impact on people or property.” In Newport, Virginia, that zone includes historically significant buildings as well as residents’ homes, according to The Roanoke Times. Other Virginians have expressed fear about threats to groundwater, given the porous nature of the karst landscape of the state’s Giles County where some of the pipeline is slated to go.

Pipeline supporters include Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) and local business leaders, who say the project would create jobs, lower energy costs and potentially attract new business.

A public comment period on the project will run through December 22nd. Anyone can file a comment on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission website, or call or write to FERC Secretary Kimberly Bose. The Appalachian Trail Conservancy has also put together a comprehensive guide on how to contact members of the Virginia and West Virginia legislature and representatives of the U.S. Forest Service.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

Rural Oil & Gas Industrialization

Why damages “never” occur in oil and gas extraction!

Commentary by S. Tom Bond, Retired Chemistry Professor & Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

The human animal is a creature of habit. Analysis of our behavior involves the expenditure of energy, which is abhorred by our animal nature; and so custom, precedent and habit, lag behind change. Occasionally the spirit soars when understanding comes on a higher level, but to change our society is very difficult.

Oil and gas extraction began a long time ago, very gradually. Little energy was required, in fact little was available. The return was great, and since little area was disturbed by extraction, damages could be ignored. Most of what was used, lumber and nails, most of the waste oil and gas were removed by natural microbiological processes, and the iron machinery was valuable enough to be removed for junk. The marks down the hillside caused by salt water are still there, but grassed over – I have worked over them all my farming life. The oil on the creeks has washed away. The drilling platform was made by pick and shovel and occasionally by horse drawn slip scraper, and you can still find them, but they are not conspicuous.

Another factor was that the West was still open, so land was cheap. Cash money was hard to come by – think of the inflation since then. Much of the time in those days the wage for farm workers was “a dollar a day and all you can eat” – one good meal!

So it didn’t occur to people who owned both land and petroleum to separate the total return from the minerals into two parts – damage and mineral payment – it looked like a lot of money, just take it and smile.

When their children decided to move to town, some clever lawyers figured out a way to allow them to continue receiving the “royalty” payment for the specified minerals, and allow some land hungry person to buy the “surface.” This is called “separation of estates.” Invariably the mineral owner retained the “right to remove the (specified) minerals,” by methods unspecified. The new surface owner doubtless thought of the methods then in use and land value then current. He could hardly have been expected to think of changes in technology that would occur in 100 years.

Those early wells were drilled by spudding. That is raising and dropping a weight of solid iron about 6 inches in diameter weighing about a ton. Water was pumped out of the well, not brought to it, and the road was only wide enough for the oxen to drag up the engine block and later one track to allow a standard truck to come up and go down the hill one way at a time. Little rock was used, because it had to be broken up to the preferred size by hand. Qualitatively it was a different technology.

Fracking up to the 1950′s was done by dropping a bottle of nitroglycerin “down the hole.” In the early years the bottle was brought to the site by a horse and buggy which everyone on the road very carefully avoided. The remains of this extraction method are not conspicuous in 2015.

Today fracking involves 1000 truck-loads of water, carrying 4,000,000 gallons of water, truck-loads of chemicals of known and unknown toxicity. This is for each well and each well produces an average of 1,000,000 gallons of toxic flow-back carrying not only the chemicals sent down the well, but chemicals dissolved in the 180 degree temperature below. Trucks must pass, so the roads are often wider than the public road they hook up to. Drill pads and roads use acres and acres of land covered with thick crushed limestone that will be readily identifiable 2000 years from now. And acres and acres of pipeline right of way that will not be producing timber for 70 or more years after the production is abandoned. The return on capital and energy expended in drilling has diminished from over 50 to 1 to something like 10 to 1. Environmental damage has increased as a consequence by a similar factor.

And still there is no damage in the gas field, they say. Technology has outpaced custom and law. The rules are the same as they were in the beginning – the damage can be ignored because the return is so large. The owner of the minerals is not the owner of the damage, however. With separation of the minerals from the surface estate, separation of the income from the damage also took place. The surface owner took the environmental damage, the risk to his/her family from contamination of air and water, the inconvenience of the operation on the farm with fences to be rebuilt, areas cut off from the rest of the farm, diversion of storm water from its original path, toxic effects on the crops and livestock, and inconvenience to living standards. He still pays the same property tax while drilling and extraction is going on and in spite of the reduced productivity afterwards.

No damage done in the gas field? Deep mendacity. Mental laziness. Conservatism in the worst sense of the word – no thought.

The notion that environmental damage is less with slick water horizontal drilling and fracture is the invention of those who look at maps, not people who look at the result. It is not what the parties had in mind with separation of estates 70 years ago. It can absolutely ruin the small owner. Continuation of this practice is the result of the difficulty of making mental and legal rearrangement with a gradual change which has now become a revolution.

There is a precedent for making such a change, however. When strip mining first came into use a similar severance claim was the rule with coal. The miner obtained the coal and striped it with no compensation to the land owner. This unfairness was so obvious it was soon changed. By the late 1940′s the usual division was half for the land owner and half for the coal owner.

The original notion that the minerals belong to the land owner is somewhat arbitrary. In many countries they do not. In Poland and Australia, for example, the government owns the minerals. In Australia they famously say, “The landowner owns post hole deep.” Probably the reason minerals belong to the landowner in the United States is three fold: because of the huge abundance of land when the country was taken from the Indians, the fact the land owner was likely to be the one who extracted mineral value as well as agricultural value, and the desire to keep the government (of the individual states) corruption free and sensitive to citizen interests. At that time the Federal Government was concerned with defense, currency and diplomacy, and little more.

Separate mineral ownership is somewhat of a two edge sword for the oil and gas people. Royalty is a very good deal for the remote owner, with only tax to pay, no loss such as the landowner bears, so they are likely to grab what is offered. On the other hand such royalty is often very fragmented. And, it is hard to get agreement on price and all necessary signatures. Still the convenient fiction continues “no great damage in the extraction of oil and gas.” Yes, sometimes a nominal sum is paid. But, as the company man says, “Well, we find that West Virginians are mostly docile.” So, payments for damages aren’t typically very much.

The truth is that if damages were fully accounted for, present and future loses to agriculture, fracking wouldn’t be economic. Corporations seldom try to look much beyond seven years in any but the most hazy way. (Think about global warming and the inexoriable rise of world temperature.) The era of burning hydrocarbons is just a blip on the scale of human time, now understood at least in general outline for some 12,000 to 14,000 years.

Yes, damage occurs on that time scale (in more than one way). But not in the minds that are doing fracking or deep ocean drilling or mountian top removal or in the minds of those regulating these.

Severe Road Damages are Widespread

Road damages shown here; see also:  www.FrackCheckWV.net and  www.Marcellus-Shale.us

Upcoming Community Meetings on Proposed Methane Gas Pipelines

Monday, Jan 6 (6 pm) Lewis Theater, Lewisburg, WV (Greenbrier Co.)

Please join us at the Lewis Theater (113 North Court St. Lewisburg, WV 24901) for a presentation by Elise Keaton with the Greenbrier River Watershed Association and lawyers from Appalachian Mountain Advocates who will answer questions related to landowner rights regarding the proposed Mountain Valley and Appalachian Connector Pipelines.

Tuesday, Jan 7 (6 pm) Craigsville Senior Center, Craigsville, WV (Nicholas Co.)

Please join the Greenbrier River Watershed Association at the Craigsville Senior Center (35 Library Rd., Craigsville WV) for a presentation and update on the proposed Mountain Valley and Appalachian Connector Pipelines. Lawyers from Appalachian Mountain Advocates will also be there to discuss landowner rights and answer questions from concerned community members.

Saturday, Jan 17 (2 pm) Jackson Mill WV Building, Weston, WV (Lewis Co.)

Please join the Greenbrier River Watershed Association as Elise Keaton presents an update on the proposed Mountain Valley, Appalachian Connector and Atlantic Coast Pipelines. Lawyers from Appalachian Mountain Advocates will also be there to discuss landowner rights and answer questions from concerned community members.

To get up-to-date information on scheduled meetings: www.mareproject.org

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline — Open Houses throughout West Virginia.

Here is a chance to confront company reps with your concerns and questions. Here are links to their schedules:

Mountain Valley Pipeline Open House Schedule

Atlantic Coast Pipeline Open House Schedule

(scroll down and click on “Open Houses and Public Meetings”)

Many community members are interested in meeting before the Open Houses. For more information please contact elise@greenbrier.org 304-647-4792

In addition, there is a Pre-Filing Open House on the so-called Supply Header Project – January 26 – in Doddridge County, which they bill as an “Informational event to share Project details with stakeholders, answer stakeholder questions, and gather information on local stakeholder issues and concerns”.

Monday, January 26, 5-7:30pm, Doddridge County Park, County Route 50/16, West Union, WV

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

One Year Anniversary of the Elk River Chemical Leak

When/Where: January 9, 2015, events from 3pm until 9pm in and around the WV Culture Center on the State Capitol Grounds. All events are free of charge and open to the public, and are organized by active members of the WV Safe Water Roundtable.

Two 2-hour free workshops sponsored by the West Virginia Rivers Coalition that will inform everyone about clean water issues and give them the tools and support to get involved. The schedule:

8–9 p.m. Screening of Elk River Blues Documentary

A world premiere of the documentary film by Mike Youngren features West Virginians’ response to systemic failures that continue to threaten our water. Film sponsored by the West Virginia Rivers Coalition and the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Charleston in the WV Culture Center Theater.

The events on January 9, held to mark the one year anniversary of the Elk River chemical leak, kick-off “January: A Month of Water.” Visit the “Events” tab at www.ourwaterwv.org for details on upcoming events.

Chuck Wyrostok, Outreach Organizer, Sierra Club, WV Chapter

Phone:  877 252 0257.  Email: outreach@marcellus-wv.com

Web-site:   www.marcellus-wv.com Note: Water is Life…Keep It Clean

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For additional information see also:  www.WVMatters.com

Response to Marcellus Well Off-Gases

Purge Gas Streaming at Lisby Pad Creates Public Hazard

YouTube Post on Mar 30, 2014:

On March 27 2014 an extremely strong chemical smell was reported coming from the Lisby well pad operated by Jay-Bee oil and gas on Big Run Road in Tyler County, WV.

Emergency fire personnel were called, they were threatened with arrest by Jay Bee employees if they tried to do their job. Several people got sick from the exposure. This is the same pad that was ordered to cease and desist operations from the January 3rd explosion. A few weeks later there was a spill on the pad. (Jay-Bee has had over 20 environmental violations and 38 OSHA violations and is still allowed to do business in the state, according to the post.)

The audio/video here captures some of the communications among emergency personnel dispatched to the site. See and hear this communication exchange on YouTube:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=3uRfTrLwXM4

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Marcellus gas well purge gives off fumes in Tyler County, WV

News from WTOV, Channel 9, March 28 2014

TYLER COUNTY, WV — Crews are purging a new well at the Lisby Pad along Indian Creek Road about 8 miles south of Middlebourne. EMA Director Tom Cooper said that work is giving off fumes. Thursday night into Friday morning, people within a couple of hundred yards of the site were evacuated from their homes. Officials said it was precautionary and was largely due to the smell. Those families have since returned to their homes. Cooper said the work is almost finished.

Diesel Fuel Exhaust Disrupts Scent Signals for Honeybees

Article by Helen Thompson for National Geographic, October 3, 2013

To a bee, no two flowers smell quite the same. When honeybees forage for flowers, they search for, learn, and memorize distinctive floral scents and return to the hive to tell other bees what they’ve found through their famous waggle dance.

It is an important ritual that is being disrupted by one of the most pervasive forms of air pollution—diesel exhaust—according to a new study published Thursday in Scientific Reports. The research pinpoints the mechanism by which the fuel-combustion pollutants degrade certain chemicals in floral odors. The absence of those chemicals affects honeybees’ ability to recognize the scent. (See related quiz: “What You Don’t Know About Cars and Fuel.”)

Engine exhaust is hardly the only threat facing the honeybee. It is well recognized that exposure to multiple pesticides can impair bees’ olfactory skills, while ground-level ozone, or smog, and ultraviolet (UV) radiation can also degrade floral odor compounds that bees pick up on. Authorities around the globe are grappling with how to address the little-understood cyclical diseases that are causing colonies to dwindle. (See related, “The Plight of the Honeybee.”)

The new study offers insight into the specific hazard for pollinators from the fumes from cars, trucks, trains, ships, and heavy machinery. Significantly, the study indicates that honeybees haven’t been helped by the “cleaner” diesel now used in Europe and the United States due to regulations that over the past decade removed sulfur from the fuel. The researchers used ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel in their experiment. (See related: “Pictures: Cars That Fired Our Love-Hate Relationship With Fuel.”)

Odor Cues

Thousands of chemical compounds contribute to flower odors, so honeybees (Apis mellifera) need a discerning sense of smell. “A honeybee might see a red flower, and say oh is this a flower that I want to visit, and [it] uses odor cues to figure out if it’s worth visiting,” said Quinn McFrederick, an ecologist at Fresno State University in California. Odor cues can tell bees which flowers have the most nutritious nectar and pollen for harvesting.

Scientists have long thought that air pollution masked these key floral scents, but the new study provides evidence of how the exhaust actually changed the chemical composition of the odors. Using an odor palette from a common target for honeybees, oilseed rape flowers (Brassica napus), a research team at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom exposed the compounds to diesel fumes from a generator fueled by ultra-low-sulfur diesel. Almost immediately, the diesel fumes started breaking down two of the flower odor compounds: farnesene and terpinene. After training honeybees recognize the flower scent, the researchers removed both degraded compounds from the mix.

“To our surprise, really, we saw that even changes in one of the very minor constituents of the mixture caused a major change in the responsiveness of the bee to the smell,” said Tracey Newman, a neurobiologist at the University of Southampton and a co-author of the study.

The researchers said one component of diesel exhaust takes the blame for this degradation: NOx gases, compounds that contain both nitrogen and oxygen, reacting with volatile floral odors. Although the scientists used diesel fuel, which powers the majority of cars in Europe and nearly all heavy vehicles around the world, NOx gases also are emitted by gasoline, or petrol, and even alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol. (See related, “Biofuel at a Crossroads.”) “The bottom line is I don’t think one can start pointing one’s finger at biodiesel, diesel, or petrol,” said Guy Poppy, an ecologist and co-author on the study. It’s a larger issue with internal combustion engines, he said.

Both the United States and the European Union use nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels as a proxy for all NOx gases and have set limits for the amount of NO2 in the air, but not for nitric oxide (NO) levels. Poppy said, “These are the sorts of emissions that are sometimes left out from the discussions about climate change because these emissions are not ones as heavily associated with greenhouse gases.” (See related “Pictures: A Rare Look Inside Carmakers’ Drive for 55 MPG.”)

Flower Chemistry

Oilseed rape flowers aren’t the sweetest smelling blooms. “They’re actually a bit stinky,” Newman said. But, their odors are very well understood, and these two degraded compounds appear to be a key element of odor communication for bees. Other bee species and other pollinators rely even more heavily on scent over longer distances. So, the findings could have major implications for other pollinators as well, said McFrederick, who was not affiliated with the study.

Interestingly, the degraded compounds in this experiment were present only at low levels, and removing terpinene by itself led to a significant decline in bee recognition in the experiment. “That suggests that that in some way kicks off a particular pathway in the odor perception abilities of the animal,” said Newman.

The researchers’ next step is to look at the impact of diesel on the honeybee nervous system.

How will these findings play out in the real world? “The study clearly illustrates that airborne pollution can perniciously impact the ability of bees to locate food,” said Jose Fuentes, a meteorologist at Penn State University who was not associated with the study. Fuentes spelled out two cautions: The experimental levels of pollutants were high even for urban rush hour; and the impact of the NOx gases might actually be an indirect one. That’s because NOx gases notoriously react with air and sunlight to make ground-level ozone, or smog, which may be the actual culprit in disrupting the floral odor compounds.

Urban environments expose honeybees and flowers to more diesel exhaust, but there are many important factors affecting the success of hives. The kind of neighborhood gardens found in urban and suburban areas also might provide bees with longer lasting food sources than in rural areas. Field studies could shed more light on the impact of air pollution. “What we need to know is [for] a flower sitting in a field next to a car in a motorway, whether there actually is going to be a plume of smell coming from that flower and whether it’s going to be significantly affected because of the exhaust fumes,” said Poppy. The worst-case scenario would be to find a drastic reduction in honeybee foraging and pollination.

While it’s unclear how much impact diesel pollutants might have on pollination, the new study indicates that exhaust should be added to a growing list of known threats.

“Honeybees living in a modern world face many stresses,” including diseases, insecticides, and atmospheric pollutants, Poppy said. “Probably bees can cope with most of these stresses in isolation or when just two or three of them come together. But, when they all come together simultaneously, one might start to see significant effects and that might explain some of the things we’re seeing … with pollinators being lost around the world.”

The Hallowich Case of Washington County, PA

Commentary by S. Tom Bond, Resident Farmer, Lewis County, WV

The curious story of Stephanie and Chris Hallowich of Washington County in Pennsylvania may have reached an end. A good start on this is the National Geographic article relating their experience with shale drilling. Chris, a young high school History teacher, and Stephanie, an accountant, bought ten acres about 30 miles South of Pittsburgh and built their dream home, completed in 2007.

As the article puts it, “But even as they were building, the bucolic view was being replaced by an industrial panorama. Four natural gas wells, a gas processing plant, a compressor station, buried pipelines, a three-acre plastic-lined holding pond, and a gravel road with heavy truck traffic surround them. Instead of the sounds of birds and the scent of new-mown grass, the Hallowiches listen to the wheeze of tractor-trailer brakes and breathed diesel fumes—and worse.”

The result was they had to have water delivered to their home for drinking, bathing and cooking, and were exposed to air contamination, too, as well as the sound of the compressor station and trucks. As readers of FrackCheckWV.net know, standards for proof of well contamination are set impossibly high, loss of water supply simultaneous to drilling is not considered proof, you must show the contamination is identical to something that was sent down the well.

There was a conflict between the PA-DEP assessment of their well water and the results of a private lab. They had to use a wind sock to tell which way the wind was blowing, to know when to keep their children indoors. Part of Hallowich’s problem was having so many installations around them, which are considered individually, but not the total effect, in present law. They had invested their future income on the place and no one would buy it and no bank would finance the buyer. The company said they offered what amounted to 40% of the value Hallowich’s thought it was worth, but Hallowich’s denied ever getting an offer. Mrs. Hallowich became a vocal critic of the industry.

Then the Hallowich’s decided to sue. In August, 2011 it was announced the family had settled the claim against the drilling company and the two companies that operated the compressor stations. No details were released, and the results were sealed by the court.

Now the story gets more peculiar. At this point the drilling company decided to increase the size of the impoundment from 5 million to 15 million gallons.

Next, two newspapers, the Observer-Reporter of Washington County, and the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, decided to ask for opening court records, based on the state Constitution relating to open court proceedings. The judge refused, saying the papers had waited too long, from August 23 to September 6, “And untimely filing of petitions are frowned upon.”

At this point an Observer-Reporter writer thought to examine the transfer tax record in the Court House. This showed a $545, 000 between the two parties.

November 15th, 2011, the Hallowich’s filed a second suit against the drilling company stating it had violated the confidential agreement by falsely stating it paid $500,000 for the property. The actual price was $100. The claim was that the drilling company intentionally and fraudulently filed a Reality Transfer Tax Statement of Value with the State Department of Revenue to publically embarrass them and inflate the family’s tax obligations on the sale of their home and “garner a public relations windfall,” because the company had paid more than the full market (appraised) value of the property.

By April the matter had grown so important as a news item that the casewas appealed to the PA Superior Court. Earthjustice, a public interest law firm specializing in cases protecting natural resources, safeguarding public health, and promoting clean energy, filed an amicus brief on behalf of doctors, scientists, researchers and advocates supporting the joint efforts of the Pennsylvania newspapers. “The sealed court records in this case are part of a widespread pattern of industry secrecy,” Mr. Gerhart said. “In the face of a nationwide gas drilling boom and the troubling reports of related health impacts, we cannot afford to let this pattern continue.”

The 39-page brief contained references to 27 other court cases in seven states involving confidential settlements or limited disclosure or nondisclosure of court proceedings alleging health or environmental problems caused by unconventional shale gas development involving hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Six of the cases are in Pennsylvania.

In June the judge left the bench under a cloud of suspicion. “Amid reports he is the subject of a state investigation, Washington County Judge Paul Pozonsky said in a letter Friday he decided to retire after more than 15 years on the bench to focus on his family and pursue other interests.”

In December the state Supreme Court sent the case back to the county court.  In January the case was again in Washington County court before a new judge who said, “The whole thing is a little unusual. There wasn‘t at least complete transparency that occurred here. And if you have a presumption of openness in the court and all the activities that happen in it, this might raise some eyebrows.”

In a March a decision was made by the new Judge that the record should be opened. The settlement paid out $750,000,including more than $150,000 in legal fees. The comment from the driller at this point was, “Range does not have concerns with the judge’s decision, which we greatly respect, to make the court file public. This information combined with the vast public data accessible through the DEP’s extensive investigations should provide the public with even greater clarity that shale gas is being developed safely and responsibly.” To which the reader will no doubt ask, “So why were they against disclosure in the first place.”

The new judge’s statement was, “Corporations, companies and partnership have no spiritual nature, feelings, intellect, beliefs, thoughts, emotions or sensations because they do not exist in the manner that humankind exists … They cannot be ‘let alone’ by government because businesses are but grapes, ripe upon the vine of the law, that the people of this Commonwealth raise, tend and prune at their pleasure and need. Therefore, this court must grant those motions and reverse [the previous decision], unless a higher authority forestalls the common law’s application.”

An article appeared on March 21 titled “Washington County couple collects $750K settlement in fracking case with no medical evidence to support health claims,” allowing the spokesman from the drilling company to say, “We’ve long maintained there was never any environmental or safety impact on the family. The public can now very clearly see this is an industry that is being faithfully and responsibly developed without adverse impacts on health, safety or the environment.”

Whoa! What’s the lesson here? Do you suppose these people admitted they were lying all along? Do you suppose two college educated people didn’t understand the implications of the statement admitting no medical evidence existed to show that drilling harmed them when collecting a settlement? Or do you suppose it was a logical extension of the often used confidential settlements, mentioned above, so frequently forced on litigants to get them to settle? Is this last interpretation out of line with the attempt to “stick it to the Holloways” by falsely reporting property value as mentioned in the second suit filed?

What is the old saying, “When you swim with sharks….”