Toon policy: Feel free to copy and paste
any cartoons to share with friends,
but please don't use for commercial
purposes without permission!
Just e-mail and ask....
projectforsaken@earthlink.net
| Week Forty-Nine August 25 - August 31 | ||||
| Entry - 08-26-08
|
DAY 59.... Day 59 and finally.... the COGCC has proposed to conduct some sampling on Thursday, the 28th of August. Provided they follow through (and I have no doubt they will), we will have waited 61 days to have this event investigated. Blindly drinking from our water well in West Divide Creek all the while. Astonishing. I'm not sure what is worse. The COGCC's blatant refusal to investigate the seep or our outrageously impossible efforts to mobilize agencies into action in response to it. Because of this stupefying delay, thanks in very large part the Environmental Manager, valuable evidence has been lost which could have not only helped identify at least some of the contaminants, the full scope and source of this event, but also would have likely been instrumental in the prevention of a another one. Even more disturbing, we may never know what we were exposed to. Apparently, the COGCC will be testing soils (including mud and corrosive stuff on rocks), air (for gas) and water (including biofilm and iron-reducing bacteria). At his point, however, the corrosive stuff appears to have been neutralized through rains and is now largely gone. I no longer detect the gas I smelled as early as the 17th, emanating from the drying area of the seep. The iron-reducing bacteria has largely retreated. The biofilm is gone. The water is no longer expressing to the surface, and the ponded areas have dried out. The dead crawdads are long gone. It's almost as if such a delay were planned. On August 22nd, I found another exit point for the seep at the opposite end of our property from the one we found on June 28th. It is relatively small - maybe six feet square, but it suggests the area of impact was much larger than we first suspected. The trees and shrubs in this newly discovered area are in great decline. If I hear industry belly-ache one more time about how unfair these new rules are to their profit-driven interests, I'm going to puke. It's pretty clear to me that even despite old rules that mandated the COGCC protect human health and safety, industry has some pretty strong allies on their side within the very agency tasked to regulate them. Chalk a big one up for industry and toss another American family in the can. After the 2004 event, a two-year moratorium was placed on this highly fractured and geologically sensitive area. EnCana Oil and Gas, USA - found to have been responsible for the 2004 blowout - lobbied hard to lift that moratorium. The COGCC lifted it under new stipulations for continued drilling. Part of those stipulations required on-going oversight by the COGCC. Their words follow:
From: "NOTICE TO
OPERATORS DRILLING MESAVERDE GROUP OR DEEPER WELLS IN THE MAMM CREEK FIELD
AREA IN GARFIELD COUNTY WELL CEMENTING PROCEDURE AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS:
This area was established from the previous West
Divide Creek Moratorium Area to focus on the specific areas that, based on
over 3 years of intensive study and review, the COGCC staff believe
continues to require significant drilling and completion oversight by the
State."
There has been very little oversight. The Juniper Group pad (now nearly completed) has not had a single inspection. When we first noted anomalies in the environment, after EnCana first reentered and began drilling the area, we were told by the COGCC environmental team that they were unaware the Schwartz site was being drilled again. We believe this seep strongly suggests that the new stipulations are insufficient to protect the public and the environment and therefore, must be revisited. We are under lease from EnCana and stand to receive significant royalties from the drilling which is allowed to continue. However, we now ask that the COGCC call a cease to nearby drilling activities until such time as the scope of this new seep and its cause can be determined. With prompt and appropriate investigation - this should not unduly hinder operations. Characteristics of this seep were first noted in 2007 when EnCana Oil and Gas, USA drilled nine new wells from the pad site of the 2004 blowout. Those observations were also discounted by the COGCC as well as EnCana. EnCana continues drilling a short distance from the new seep site as the seep continues, threatening the water well we drink from and downstream communities. EnCana has not contacted us regarding the discovery of the new seep, and, at this point any potential communication should be directed through the COGCC or our County Liaison. The COGCC continues to mischaracterize this event and stress that this seep is the same event that occurred in 2004. This is a fallacy. Although the 2004 seep continues, and is being - to a diminishing degree - both monitored and remediated. Not only is this seep 2000 feet or so downstream, it is not being monitored or remediated in any way - in fact, it has not even been acknowledged. EnCana stands to make an estimated 6 Billion dollars from uninterrupted activities near this seep site. As I said, we stand to make money also but this is not about the money. It's about known and serious threats to public health as well as continued environmental degradation. We would hope that, as an agency enjoying primary jurisdiction over such matters, the COGCC would also find the public's health and pre-industrial condition of West Divide Creek more important. We would hope that EnCana would also take this matter into appropriately serious consideration and examine their activities which - as occurred in 2004 - may have contributed to or caused this event. Apparently, 61 days is the appropriate amount of delay until all or most environmental evidence is removed from the scene. The ultimate irony in all of this is that the 2004 blowout was the catalyst that ushered in new legislative mandates directing the COGCC to protect public health and wildlife resources. Now, as a newly discovered and potentially toxic seep creeps into Divide Creek, it's being utterly ignored during those very rule-change deliberations. I recently found buried in the fine print of the rules "clarifications" issued by COGCC staff, an exemption allowing industry to clean up any contamination caused before September 14,2004 to a lower standard. Of course, the 2004 seep occurred in April 2004. Obviously something else happened in September industry doesn't want to be responsible for either. The COGCC needs to remove this exemption. To compare video of the two events, please visit the sitemap and go to the video section To view all 6 pages associated with this seep - and view perspective maps, graphics, images and other details, please visit Divide Creek Seep 2008 View a timeline of the 2004 blow-out to date. |
| Entry - 08-28-08
|
The COGCC does a 180º, overnight turn around.... Last week I received an e-mail that COGCC would be coming out to conduct sampling. We were informed it would be soil, gas and water. After the meeting with Garfield County Commissioners last week, we thought we would only receive mud and sand sampling - if we could even secure that. We were hoping for groundwater sampling, but it seemed that simply wasn't going to happen. I let the COGCC know that I had discovered (on the 22nd) another small area where the seep appeared to have exited. The location is at the opposite (South) end of our property, near a neighbor (just as the initial discovery of the black and orange seep extends onto another neighbor at the North end). While this newly discovered area on the creek was relatively small - maybe 2'x3', the nearby vegetation is in serious decline. Fortunately, there is a ground water monitor already nearby this area, so sampling for ground water here would be easily accomplished. Also, upstream of the area of initial discovery, I found what looked like soap collected on the banks of the creek in another upwelling area that had gone previously undetected because it appeared to be a channel of the creek. These were new observations in two new areas. Considering vegetation impacts and surface seeps, there are now seven suspect areas. When we learned the COGCC was planning to sample soil, gas and water we were absolutely thrilled, and when the COGCC asked me to identify seven locations - we were elated. We could not have asked for more. To have the COGCC examine and sample from each suspect area is truly what is appropriate in this situation, but, even an acknowledgment of the situation has been extraordinarily difficult to secure. The Director of the COGCC e-mailed and offered to have a phone conversation about concerns we had outlined in a previous e-mail. We were asked to decide what we wanted in the way of testing, but without a technical background we fretted and researched our way through a sickening week begging answers from anyone who would share insight and spending long hours into the night reviewing anything online that I thought might lead to clues. We only recently learned of the threats posed by CO2-mobilized arsenic; and were stunned to learn that arsenic has never been tested for since the 2004 blowout (which continues today). One of the biggest problems with trying to define what we would like to test for in such sampling is that drilling mud and fracing fluids are kept secret, and to our knowledge are not even shared with the COGCC. Of course, we believe that these impacts are related to gas drilling, and if natural gas has communicated with the surface, then drilling mud, cement, frac fluids - and a host of other chemical compounds may have also. We strongly suspect the mud in the two ponded areas may be drilling mud. Diesel oils and fuels, biocides, anti-corrosives, surfactants (soap), emulsifiers, acid, clay, all kinds of things - synthetic and organic - are used in the drilling process. And obviously we feel a list of such things should be made available to the COGCC so that appropriate sampling could be conducted. Given that diesel range organics (DROs) were detected at 9.9 mg/kg, and that under such conditions, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and benzene, ethyl-benzene, toluene and Xylene (BETX) should have been tested for when DRO's were found, we hoped that PAH and BTEX sampling would finally make it into the effort. We were heartened by COGCC's offer to even "dig for water". Since there is no ground water monitor well present in the seep area, I researched how such an apparatus might be installed by hand. A hand auger is normally used. Given that the COGCC seemed prepared to finally look into the ground water issue I was fully prepared to roll up my sleeves and go to task too, helping to dig the hole if necessary. The COGCC sent a list of what they would look for, and, based on the advice we had received and research we had conducted, all of those things seemed appropriate. But, the list looked incomplete. I did not see where methane would be tested for (a major component of a natural gas seep - we learned in 2004), or CO2 (often used to frac - and a gas that mobilized toxic metals into the soils). Nor did it appear that PAHs would be tested for. After consultation with several folks, I responded to the e-mail, asking for some technical clarifications - us being pretty darned clueless overall! I suggested a tour of the impacted areas so the COGCC staff could best determine where they might like to sample and make the best use of their efforts. I also offered to help in any way I could. I never received a response to our request for clarification. Because I had received notice from the COGCC that several folks could be in attendance, I asked who would be arriving, but the COGCC staff replied that there would be only one person from their agency. There was some confusion over who else would be present, and an EnCana representative was even included in a nine-party c.c. mailing list (some of whom I do not know) and had hoped also to attend. I invited him to, but received late word that he would not be in attendance. We didn't know who or what to expect, but we were delighted the COGCC was visiting the area for the first time in over two months and would be assessing expanded observations which had occurred since that time. We fretted, we worried, we waited. We hoped we hadn't missed anything. We hoped for the best....
|
|
"I am prepared to collect water samples for volatile organic compounds (VOCs – EPA 8260) and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs EPA 8270), total and dissolved metals, and major anions and cations from several locations including 1 background location. I am prepared to dig a hole to collect water if necessary. I also intend to collect soil samples for both TRPH gasoline range and diesel range from several locations and 1 background location and BTEX in soils from the same soil sample locations (including the 1 background location). Additionally I am collecting sodium adsorption ration (SAR) soil samples from each soil sample site. As to the suspect mud and sand, I will collect samples for x-ray diffraction analysis and, in the case of the mud, further metals analysis and also TRPH FRO/DRO and BTEX. As to the “white precipitant” I am also prepared to collect samples (up to 2) also for x-ray diffraction analysis. If I can collect gas samples I am prepared to collect up to 2 samples for both gas composition and stable isotope analysis of methane and deuterium. The goal of this sampling is to determine if there is any oil & gas related impact to the creek area. This will be targeted sampling to aid the COGCC in making a determination of any industry related impact. If you can identify up to 7 possible sample locations on your property prior to the sampling, it will significantly increase the effectiveness of the sampling to investigate your stated concerns and also to decrease our time for the sampling given your concerns regarding hot weather. Sampling Date and Time (proposed) Sample list (water): Sample list (soil) Suspect mud – x-ray diffraction and metals (see list under water samples), TRHP (GRO/DRO), BTEX, and SAR if possible. Suspect sand – x-ray diffraction Precipitant – x-ray diffraction Gas list Please let me know if the sample date and time remains convenient to your schedule."
|
Our 08-26-08 response to COGCC asking for technical clarity and offering assistance. Thank you for explaining your intentions as well as your goal. Although I feel I am very much trying to conduct a conversation in Greek, I found your efforts very helpful. I have no technical background in these issues, and what I have learned has been without benefit of cohesive context. I have borrowed bits and pieces from a number of different agencies in different states and tried to cobble together a sense of what should occur based on the advice of a number of different experts. All of this has been helpful, but as you might imagine, without a scientific foundation, it is difficult to discuss the matter in the language of protocol. Therefore, I appreciate all the more your efforts to clarify references by noting corresponding nomenclature. Based on guidance from others who have conduced soil samples in similar situations, I am wondering if you will be testing for RRO (Residual Range Organics) or PAHs (acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo-a-anthracene, benzo-a-pyrene, benzo-b-fluoranthene, benzo-kfluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo-a,h-anthracene, fluorene ideno-123-cd-pyrene, naphthalene, and Pyrene) in the soils or water samples? Additionally, the following were advised – and looking at your list, it appears as though many are included, but when each is referred to in an even slightly different manner, I am clueless as to the sameness of a particular test. Please, then, let me know if you will be testing for these. Thank you for your tolerance of my level of ignorance about these matters.
150.1 – pH, Electrometric This may seem obvious or is implied, but will you be testing for methane? Will you be testing for iron-reducing, iron sulfate and/or iron-oxidizing bacteria? And finally, will you be testing for strontium. In the mud, will you be looking for polymers? It seems presumptive to test without benefit of knowing what may be present in the environment – if in fact, this is all relative to drilling operations. For instance, we certainly do not know whether an oil-based or aqueous mud was used to drill. We don’t know what fracing fluids may have been used. Or what type of acid may have been used during the fracing stages. It would clearly be helpful in determining impacts to the environment if we know what could be present. For example, the sands could be a mixture of frac sands (natural or synthetic) and formation sands. Does the COGCC know what was used to drill the Schwartz wells and if so, are you relying on this knowledge to any degree to design your sampling efforts? We do believe that what we are seeing is relative to drilling operations, and given that we first began noting anomalies within the environment last year when EnCana re-entered the Schwartz site, also believe that this latest discovery may be the result of combined mishaps on any number of wells. It would seem prudent then to proceed with benefit of as comprehensive a list of potential contaminants as possible. Along that vein, can you please forward me whatever guide you follow for “standard sampling procedures”? There are two ground water monitors in place (#23 and #27) and our domestic well, all of which will provide easily sampled locations. There is no easy access to ground water, however at the main seep area. Will you bring an auger for such a purpose – and is there anything that I can bring to assist if you need any additional help digging for water? This point behind the main seep area is obviously of great concern as this general region is the geographically largest and exhibited the greatest number of environmental anomalies including, unusual clay-like muds with heavy black underlayment, iron-reducing bacteria, dead wildlife, corrosion of rocks, a seep of DROs, soils gas, a continuous expression of gas several months ago in the creek bed, an unusual profusion of sand, and an upwelling and subsidence of groundwater which fed both adjacent seep areas. Fortunately, in this main seep area, the two ponded areas are like two large petri dishes and acted as catch-pans for the seep while it was actively expressing to the surface. It stopped expressing several weeks ago, however, and creek water – at high water times – has trickled through the area since. The muds appear tenacious however. I have twice in the last week visited the area where I detected the odor of gas – propane/butane-like – but did not smell it at the location either time last week. The latest discovery, as I mentioned on the phone, is at the opposite end of the property. But, it appears to be a small surface expression area (2’X3’) perhaps. But the trees and shrubs in a much larger adjacent area are significantly distressed. This is one area where a ground water monitor is nearby (#23). Also, another area that is significantly impacted has another monitoring well nearby (#27). Our water well is very near a third impacted area. But again, the area of the main seep location (North Eastern corner of our property) is without a ground water monitor of any sort. A Thursday 10:00am – 2:00pm timeframe will be fine. When you arrive, I will show you all the areas that have experienced impacts which will hopefully give you a better perspective on how you would like to proceed through sampling each area. Will you be arriving from the access road, or will you be stopping at our property and hiking in? The road will provide the closest access to the main seep area, but will still require manual transport of equipment for perhaps thirty to forty yards. And, as I noted previously, the newest area is at the opposite end of the property. I can assist in transporting whatever equipment you may need to bring. Please let me know if and how I may assist you in planning for this extensive visit. I’d like to help make it the most efficient and beneficial in any way I can.
Thank you, Lisa |
| Entry - 08-28-08
|
COGCC sampling efforts only a ruse? COGCC showed up about an hour late which was no big deal since I was just out nosing around the seep site, but when the Environmental Specialist [ES] showed up, I was blown away by his behavior. When I saw him approach, I waved him over to where I had been waiting and warned him of the uneven ground in the high weeds as he approached. When he got there, I said I was going to show him the areas of impact. He had not been to this site since last winter, had not been there since the beaver pond washed away and had not seen any of the impacts from the seep discovered on June 28th. Immediately, he was confrontational and began shouting and said he didn't have time for that, that "this is not a science project." I said, "Yes, it is a science project, and here is where the gas was, and the seep was, and so on...." He said he was sick of dealing with me and was sorry if I didn't think I was getting enough attention. Like I live for this crap. At that point it was very clear that he was either trying to intimidate me, or instigate a confrontation. I keyed the walkie talkie so family members back at the house could hear what was being said, and I asked the ES to just stop. I asked him to stop for three reasons: 1) I didn't want him to continue to berate me, 2) I didn't want him to say something he would regret and 3) I didn't want him to continue in such a manner until there was another person present to witness it. He said he didn't have time to play games. I said, I am not playing games, but if you're going to behave this way, I want another person down here to witness it. He said "Bite me." Honestly. I don't know what he was thinking. In fact, as he walked away to apparently leave, I asked what was the matter with him. He wasn't profane, just rude, weird and acting stupid. At this time I also grabbed the video camera which had been lying near the frog in the grass. This person had spoken to me in such a way once before when I called and asked for a report over a year ago, but I wrote it off to him having a really bad day and simply taking it out on me. I hadn't forgotten it, however, which is why I picked up the video recorder and hit the record button. It was just he and I, and I wasn't about to be reproached, again and under such circumstances without a record of what was said. I don't know whether he knew I was recording the conversation or not, but for my purposes, I didn't know what might transpire and wasn't about to take any chances. He wasn't exactly behaving rationally. Anyway, I, once again asked him to just stop, and he said no, that I either listened now or he was leaving. So I listened, and on and on it went, as he continually asked me to show him where I wanted him to sample and I continued to try. Fortunately, by this time, a family member had overheard the "Bite me" and other choice comments, hurried down to the creek and observed the interaction personally. So unlike the COGCC Environmental Manager later claimed, there actually was a witness and it was recorded. It wasn't (this time) just his word against mine. As I continued to point things out, he continued to interrupt - at one point saying he didn't "have time for a stroll". Unfortunately, and not by my choosing, the seep has left its mark from one end of our property to the other and I had only walked some ten feet within the main area to demonstrate areas of black seepage, corroded rocks, gas and upwelling. He continued to try to explain away our observations by saying there was no proof, and there was just water and sand and dirt. It was all very frustrating and irrational, and I honestly didn't know what he expected of me. I continued to try to demonstrate areas, but he wouldn't listen and seemed to want to argue. I frankly - and this was probably my fault - just couldn't imagine him not wanting any context, or caring about what had happened - where occurrences had been, but are now altered or gone due a two-month delay in investigating. I really never anticipated anything like what happened, and obviously wrongly assumed that the COGCC came down to see what was up and judge the best place to grab their samples. He kept insisting that I show him proof, which was really frustrating since we've been knocking ourselves out trying to photograph and post the photos and write letters, and conduct presentations - it's just endless, and we don't know what else we can do. So, anyway, this went on, and I grew more impatient as I continually failed to see what it was he wanted me to do for him. He refused to test the water saying he wasn't going to dig twelve feet. I don't know where that number even came from, but the water table was probably only a few feet down. I thought he was prepared to dig - my mistake - again. Moving on.... At one point, he stressed that the COGCC had "bent over backward" to appease us.... had invested vast resources in "this seep", and "there has never been evidence of any impacts to your property!" he said. I was stunned. I said, "This is a new event! It has been four and half years since the seep in 2004, and back then, there were only four wells in the area - now, there are 20 new wells! He didn't seem to get it. And they are the agency that is supposed to oversee the drilling. With special emphasis on oversight since lifting the moratorium and allowing the drilling to recommence last year. But was there proper oversight? No. Had there been, our concerns that we raised then would have been taken seriously, and what we are dealing with now could have been avoided. He continued to express agitation for whatever reason as I continued - and probably shouldn't have - to try and explain where he might like to test and why. I thought that was what he wanted me to do, but it became more and more apparent that he didn't want me to do that. I didn't know what he wanted. I told him I wasn't the environmental specialist. I was trying to point out areas - like he asked - so that he, in his best judgment, could decide which areas would best meet his objectives. He didn't seem to get that at all. He didn't even seem to hear the words I was speaking. At one point I asked him if he would like to see the frog I found in the creek. I said it couldn't' move it's back legs. He said, "No. Frogs die every day. Birds die every day." It was pretty unreal. This was the environmental specialist from the agency which demands and enjoys sole, delegated jurisdiction over not only drilling activities but also human health and safety and environmental safety actually telling me he didn't want to know about or talk about or see this frog found that very morning in an area where gas is clearly saturated in the creek bed near the point of the 8-minute expression found earlier in the year. At one point earlier in the conversation, he said if I didn't want to work with them, then we could find somebody else. I reminded him his agency had jurisdiction. It was their job to protect the health and safety of people and the environment where drilling is involved. I was also becoming sarcastic by this point, but doing my level best - my level best - to accommodate him and get the sampling under way.. It just sucked. It was miserable, and I honestly don't have a clue why he behaved in such a way or what he thought would happen as a result. It almost seemed predetermined. So anyway, he kept getting more and more impatient, pushing for me to hurry and to just point out whatever. So, I did exactly as he asked. I walked to an area near where the frog had been found, and I pointed and said, "There's the soil. Sample it if you want to." Then he said, "You know what? I'm done. I'm not dealing with this." By this time, it was just so stupid, and I said, "Is this not what you asked me to do? I'm doing what you wanted me to do." He said, "You show us the evidence. You show us impacts." I said, "Fine, we'll find someone else to sample this." And he left. He walked away. I told him he had half an hour to get off the property and not to leave anything behind. I guess he told Dennis Webb - a Grand Junction Sentinel reporter - that I was uncooperative. Why in the world would we be uncooperative after struggling to try and get the COGCC to acknowledge problems from over a year ago and beating our heads against a wall for the last two months begging for testing in the face of overwhelming visual evidence? Why would we jeopardize that? We would not. That's the point. I would have dealt with anything to have the sampling conducted. It took the COGCC environmental specialist walking off the project to end any chance we had. All I did was give him a limited time to leave the property. But only after he walked away from the project. This has frequently been the manner in which we are treated by this agency, and it's no damn wonder we're so frustrated. How can a landowner prove impacts? We've done everything we possibly can. We can't afford those kinds of tests, and we can barely sleep and function now, trying to keep up with everything as it changes and post it and keep up with this website - so all the agencies can look at it in their offices at the same time. It's just ridiculous. We cannot do anything else. This consumes our lives, and there are about a billion other things I'd rather do right now. If the COGCC is so short-staffed and under budgeted and they're sick of dealing with me when I am only trying to tell them that impacts have occurred from the insane pace of drilling that they keep rubber stamping, then, good God, they need to slow down the permitting! Why blame the landowner? We sure as hell did not ask for this. We asked for sampling. But it looks like not only are we not going to get it, but it was never really even intended. Looking back, I think it's a little odd that no one else showed up even though at least one person expressed dismay that they had been invited and were supposed to have been asked to accompany COGCC on the tour. It's also a little strange that the Environmental Manager assumed there weren't any witnesses. This is the same person who told the County Commissioners that CO2 wasn't used to frac Schwartz in 2004 - even though documentation demonstrates otherwise. Here's Dennis' article:
"Silt resident, environmental specialist disagree about
effects of drilling" |
|
|
||
|
|
|
No matter how they begin, all of the really best stories have happy endings. Although we never expected this story to unfold the way it did, we invite you to follow it, because, frankly - it blew our socks off and I bet it will blow yours off too! I first found Spots, the leopard frog, on the morning of August 28th, 2008. The COGCC was late in arriving to sample West Divide Creek. Of course, this gave me additional time to nose around the seep area and see what had changed since I last checked it out. Video camera in hand, I scanned the area on the South bank of the creek. Gas bubbled up into the creek when I stood on rocks to cross through it. That, of course, got my attention. So I looked closer and saw lots of tiny vent holes where gas had been escaping for some time. Then a little frog caught my eye. And not in a good way.... Meet spots, the little frog struggling to make it bank-side while in the grip of what appeared to be partial paralysis and some kind of neurological impairment. He appeared to be a male given his shape, size and forelegs (which tend to be larger in females).
Spots the Super Frog - Part 1 - The Rescue
I knew the COGCC was visiting that morning to sample areas impacted by the seep discovered on June 28th, 2008. Frogs and other amphibians are very sensitive to environmental pollutants, so they are effective early indicators of neurotoxins and other kinds of chemical contamination. I wanted to show this little frog to the COGCC. Maybe they would have some idea of what was affecting him.... Spots gets situated in temporary housing and heads for the shade of tall grass as we wait for the COGCC.... Only an hour or so later, Spots was settled into his new digs - a CorningWare baking dish!
Spots the Super Frog - Part 2 - A
New Environment
But with some native mud, stones and water - plus some new water from the tap, Spots settled in. But wait! What if he was hungry? Surely he hadn't been able to hunt in such a condition. We looked around for a fly. Where are all the window-thumping flies of summer when you need one? Fortunately, twenty minutes of on-again, off-again hunting produced three flies that volunteered to be dinner. We served them up on a rock. Spots would have none of it. Spots was busy with the effects of what we later learned from a toxicologist was likely poisoning from something akin to a 'cide'.... that is, some kind of pesticide or herbicide - or, in the case of natural gas drilling - biocide.... an agent employed to kill micro-flora like algae's.... The oil and gas industry uses as many as 100 different biocides. Basic offshore drilling processes are very similar
to onshore processes. According to the helpful tutorial: "Waste discharges during the offshore oil
and gas activity", by Stanislav Patin (translation by Elena Cascio):
"The most widespread biocides used in the oil
and gas production practice include sodium salts of hypochlorite, formalin
releasers, and glutaraldehyde as well as biguanidine and quaternary
ammonium, and a number of other compounds. The composition of some compounds
is not always known. Some biocides are highly toxic. Many countries either
discourage (for example, in case of carbamates and thiocarbamates) or
prohibit (for example, in case of dichlorophenols and pentachlorophenates)
their use by the offshore oil and gas industry. Drilling discharges also
contain many heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium, zinc, chromium, copper,
and others) that come from components of both drilling fluids and drilling
cuttings. Chapter 6 gives the ecotoxicological assessments and comparison of
different drilling fluids and drilling cuttings."
Spots the Super Frog Part 3 -
Detoxification
Spots hung in there, but spent most of his time trembling and twitching. We thought Spots was a goner. An hour later, Spots trembled so badly, we thought he might be headed for the big grassy bank in the sky. But Spots still had a special twinkle in his eye, and we could tell he wasn't about to give it up yet. He just seemed determined somehow. Our hearts broke for him, we prayed for him. We stroked his fine, wet skin and asked the guardian angels to make him well again. The more I looked in on Spots and saw his efforts to overcome his condition, the more determined I became that "science" wouldn't take him from us. If they had, he would have been promptly dispatched. It seems that the scientific community can conduct few observations without having to do something in. Not Spots. "Come on Spots. You can beat this...." we said. I changed his water thinking that maybe he was detoxifying, and he could purge any toxins from his body by being immersed in clean water. It was worth a shot. Hours passed. We couldn't sleep at all. Spots either. It had been a pretty tough day, what with how the COGCC stuff went. So the kitchen light kept flipping on and off until 5:00 am into the next morning. That's not so good for a little critter used to night staying night and day staying day. So, we carried him off to the bathroom and tucked him in beneath a splatter screen from the kitchen. We wished him well. Little did we realize, the splatter screen did not form the best seal! Twenty minutes later we found our intrepid Spots making his way down the hall! He had leapt from his little house to the floor and was off searching for the creek. "Good grief!" A frog on the floor! Something in our brains said.... "Where did a frog come from?" It had been a very long day.... The dogs quickly advanced.... "Cripes! Hold the dogs!" We humped along the hall, chasing Spots down, and he hopped twice before I could grab him. His hoppers seemed back on track! It was a quick douse in the tap and back to bed, little man. He still twitched a bit. But his eyes twinkled even more merrily. Maybe it was just a massive adrenaline rush that carried him down the hall. Such an event would probably inspire such behavior in me! "Now go to sleep!" And we flipped the light off once again. Everyone caught a few hours sleep. As dawn broke over the kitchen table, I brought Spots in for observation. He seemed irritated. No trembling. Perhaps a bit hungry. Mostly, though, ready to get on with life back down at the creek. I could relate. I am not a very patient patient either. Hospitals give me the creeps. I wanted even more to take him back to his home. But, I wanted to be sure he was fully functional. He still hadn't eaten the flies. Frogs typically like live prey. Okay. Glucose is essential to life - it feeds the brain. Maybe, since frogs soak up stuff through their skin, I could sprinkle a wee tiny bit of sugar in the corner of Spot's house, and he could sort of absorb a little nutrition that way. I changed his water again, and in went a sprinkle of sugar. Within a couple of hours, Spots looked like he was ready to take on the whole world!
Spots the Super Frog - Part 4 -
I asked him to please have a little more patience as I dealt with stuff unfolding all around us. COGCC stuff. Now, Spots was just a captive. Poor Spots. He was ready to rock n' roll and get on down to the creek, but now... timing was not cooperating. I promised him I would take him to the creek in the morning, as long as he seemed to stabilize and held his own through one more night. Spots looked dubious but he indulged me nonetheless. I hoped he wouldn't hold it against me. I thought about his big release. He had earned it over and over again. To be free once again - to regain his mobility and strength and hop in the tall grass and swim in the cool waters and hunt water skippers and flies.... I wanted to give him his life back. We were overjoyed by his apparent recovery and everyone waited for Saturday morning! Well - we passed out and missed morning. But around noon I went out and in honor of Spots pending release caught two moths and two grass hoppers - and lay the feast before him. I had no sooner dropped in a stunned miller than Spots flashed his tongue out and BAM - breakfast was no more! Spots can hunt!! Whoohoo! We're hoping a hearty breakfast will ready him for his release in a few hours. Spots has taken on a coppery glow around his snout and head, and we hope it's not some indication of metals toxicity. Frogs are especially sensitive to such things - maybe his color is only changing because of his surroundings. We don't know. But what's been great is that he has recovered! In the beginning, my heart hurt so much for Spot's suffering. When I first found him I immediately suspected developmental retardation which can happen in contamination situations. But, it didn't make sense that he had gotten so big being so developmentally challenged. In most cases, he would have been unable to hunt and therefore starved, or he would have attracted predators by his vulnerable behavior and entered into the food chain, or, he simply might have long since drown from exhaustion - as exhibited in the way he was struggling to get to a reed and move onto the bank. Spots knew he was in trouble in the creek, but couldn't mobilize enough to get out. It was by the most amazing miracle we found him when we did, because after talking to a toxicologist, a whole other possibility arose: the possibility that he had been poisoned by whatever was in that environment, where he became stranded. We know there is gas saturation there, and who knows what all else that has come up with it. COGCC has all along tried to convince us that it's all biogenic. I said a year ago that such a conclusion was flawed. Not because a methane reading was inaccurate, but because the environmental assumptions were wrong. An in-stream beaver pond acts like a giant conversion tank. When hydrocarbons such as formation gases eek up into the environment and are collected in silt at the bottom of a pond, the silt inflates with gas and acts like a giant sponge, allowing microbes which naturally occur in soils and water to munch down big-time and proliferate. As they eat the hydrocarbons they poop out their own brand of methane, just like we do! The more bugs that show up, the more biogenic or micro-organism-generated methane is created! In fact, it's estimated that such conversations can take place at a thousand times per second in rich environments. Think I'm kidding about that? Check this out: Industry knows that if they inject these micro-organisms in a coal vein where there is a mix of hydrocarbons and water underground, these little bugs will off-gas a continuous production stream of recoverable methane. But one of the reasons this kind of microorganism production is not sought isn't because of some kind of technical problem. It's because in Canada where this technology is well known, farmers own all living things above, on, and beneath the ground (heaven to hell farming rights it's called). That means that industry would have to share profits with the lowly farmer. And that isn't about to happen. Industry wants it all. So when Spots was trembling and suffering, I could hardly stand it. We had called the DOW (no answer) and various toxicologists, but no one knew of anyone who handled such things. So, we waited, torn. Not knowing what to do, but focusing on this little guy's comfort, health and wellbeing. We changed his water, we fed him tiny amounts of sugar in his water, we waited and prayed. And as he got stronger and appeared more determined than ever to beat the odds of succumbing to apparent poisoning, we resolved this little guy was going back home, and would not become the focus of inquiring scientific minds. The elegant beauty of that is that we have video of what happened, we have a record of his recovery and the variables associated with it; and, most importantly, ultimately, we have this wonderful story of a little frog determined to survive and who has left us with a very happy ending.
Spots the Super Frog -
Part 5-A and 5-B - Seizing Freedom!
|
| Entry 08-30-08
|
EnCana Spreads Mag Chloride on the Private Lane Despite Landowner Concerns About it's Use Because EnCana has moved the rig from the Juniper Group pad over onto the "Brown" pad (after experiencing significant problems un 2004, the "Brown" is now registered under "EnCana"), we took a drive to video the condition of the access road. EnCana has a way of trashing things and not claiming responsibility. On our drive we noted they had dumped mag-chloride onto the private lane. Mag-chloride is known to contain cadmium. According to the Tenth Annual Report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, cadmium is a known human carcinogen with no safe levels of exposure. It is known to cause prostate and breast cancer in humans. EnCana wanted to use mag-chloride back in 2003 when all 9 families using the lane signed a letter asking them to not use the substance and requesting that they use water or another safe substance during times of heavy truck traffic. Since that time, EnCana bought-out two landowners and two others have moved away. EnCana then sold one of the properties retaining the other - and the critical right to access that comes with it. Since EnCana - as a landowner themselves - gained use of the lane we are grateful they have contained their operations to existing roadways without expanding their industrial use of the entire access road which would require significant and expensive upgrades. But, their reluctance to consider the impacts of mag chloride in an area where dust migration and run-off are concerns for homeowners just demonstrates how they make an effort on one hand - but keep such efforts cursory, failing to account for longer term impacts. But then again, EnCana doesn't live here. They only bought the property and gained access through the purchase of it. At the landowner meeting with EnCana last year, we again reiterated our concern over the potential use of this product. EnCana said they would use an appropriate substitute. Last week we found they had used it anyway. There was no meeting to discuss alternatives and no notice of its intended use. It just appeared. A neighbor called to complain after driving over it's fresh application and finding it had coated the underside of their car. Though it is banned in a number of communities aware of its carcinogenic properties, it is unfortunately used extensively throughout Garfield County in the winter as a means of melting ice from the roadways. Every winter it gloms onto the undercarriages of vehicles and pits and severally erodes the steel. We had hoped to keep it as far away from our home as possible, but now, EnCana has introduced it onto our private access lane, where it can track even further afield. We are familiar with the impacts of this industry, so when a neighbor says he is plagued by dust from the truck traffic that passes within a hundred yards or so of his home as rigs are moving and frac tanks are brought in, we care about that. His health is as important to us as our own. But mag-chloride isn't used in this case as ice-melt. It is used for dust control. Water would have sufficed to curtail fugitive dust from EnCana's new operations on the Brown / EnCana pad. Following is a photo of where it has been added to the road (the darker area). [08-28-08]
Following is an area where the mag-chloride appears to have spilled and now is concentrated in the soil. [08-30-08]
|
Entry 08-31-08
|
Seep Update Dead wildlife There were two other dead bird incidents, but I didn't include them here because although they occurred within days of these critters dying, there is enough speculation that they may have succumbed to other causes as to be reserved. They, however, showed no overt signs of injury.
New South Seep [08-22-08 and 08 28-08] The week prior to the sampling effort agreed to by the COGCC, we discovered another area of seeping - at the opposite (North) end of our property. It was a small area of surface anomalies - maybe 2' X 3', but the vegetation in the nearby area is in significant decline. There was a small amount of biofilm in this area, but, if this area mimics what we've seen at the main site it appears that time has diminished what may have been visible. I believe this is all the same event - just different points of exit, suggesting it is far more widespread than we fist believed.
The photo above shows foam from the newly discovered seep site on the far south of our property. We saw big chunks of foam like this during the 2004 Schwartz blowout. EnCana uses surfactants (soap) in their drilling operations. We don't know what causes these chunks, but they persist in impacted areas. Surfactants are the only substances I know of that foam, but other chemicals in agitation could perhaps do so also. Since we had a couple of days of rain after this photo was taken on the 22nd, I worried that this foam chunk would be gone the morning the COGCC was supposed to come out to sample.
From black seep area [08-28-08]
Beaver Hootch and 2008 Main Seep
Area
Iron-reducing bacteria still lurks under the bank near the beaver hootch [08-28-08] Meanwhile, across the creek on the
opposite bank, gas expresses from underground. in the same area where a
partially paralyzed frog was found the same day. click here to view video from
08-28-08 which
shows bubbling in creek bed with another, larger and apparently unimpaired
frog nearby. From area where paralyzed frog
was discovered and rescued
Area near waterfall - just maybe 20 feet upstream of 2008 main seep site and two ponded areas. [08-30-08]
Adjacent to Ponded Areas at 2008 Main Seep Site
After the COGCC instigated a confrontation and walked off the sampling project that was to have finally commenced on August 28th, 2008, we found two new areas of evident impacts on our property, and another larger area nearby which is strongly suspect. Observations from these areas follow. Turkey Point [08-30-08] The following pictures are from the Turkey Point beaver pond area. The beaver left the area around two and a half weeks ago and have not returned. I finally had an opportunity to go check out the area and found two impact areas. Beaver are especially sensitive to environmental changes - a lot like frogs. Their sudden absence after weeks of building two new dams and reinforcing a third raised serious suspicions, which were later confirmed. I saw a small fish jump in the pond, crane tracks on the bank and one frog a little downstream of the dam, but in an impacted area - that was it. No other wildlife that I could detect. No sandpipers or dippers. This is a strong indication that there is something very amiss with this environment. These birds feed on frogs and fish. If they are poisoned, the birds get poisoned. It's a food chain effect. The sensitive, attuned and able-bodied leave the area. Others eventually perish.
Area across from domestic well (on eastern bank) The following are from an area nearly directly across from our domestic water well. This is also the area of the dead rabbit. Other areas like this - where heavy biofilm was present occupied a contiguous area maybe 6' X 20'.
Paralyzed Frog - "Spots" We found a partially paralyzed frog in one impact area, but the COGCC environmental specialist refused to look at it. The frog, after 48 hours of rehabilitation, later recovered and was released back into West Divide Creek. Unfortunately, there are no areas which are not suspect, so we can only hope the frog is able to somehow steer clear of dangerous areas. please see story below for picture and video links on paralyzed frog Later, on the afternoon of 08-30-08, I walked the creek bed to the 2004 "main seep" area - which is still active - and noted an area of impact that runs nearly the full length of a neighbor's property. Pictures from that walkabout follow.
Possible New Signs of Impacts a Mile Away After the 08-30-08 walkabout, I notified our neighbors of my observations. One neighbor confided that in a conversation a week ago, another neighbor shared that they were experiencing anomalies in their otherwise excellent aquifer. They suggested to the neighbor that the water was staining their sink different colors. I don't like to repeat hearsay, but in these kinds of situations, neighbors can be isolated from one another. Isolating people and information is an effective tactic favored by industry. One way to curtail community cohesion is to pit neighbor against neighbor. In our area, where industry has and continues to be such a force, this tactic has been successful, and not all neighbors speak to one another. So, considering the circumstances of this evolving seep situation, I'm going to discuss hearsay. However, I will note it for what it is, and should it prove later to be false - I will immediately correct it. On a drive to record the condition of the access lane (EnCana is on the move again), we noted several dead patches of vegetation in fields near vigorous bubbling in a small pond used to recharge a domestic water shared by two neighbors. The dead patches may simply be the result of un-irrigated areas. However, they were small and dispersed among other healthy, tall-grass areas. The bubbling is another matter. And while it may be 'biogenic' - its very likely that it is being fed by a different methane source. This is near an area where a neighbor's water well was so full of methane after the Arbaney kick and the Schwartz blowout that they had to leave the premises. EnCana later bought that property. So, the sudden appearance of vigorous bubbling in this little pond may seem benign on its surface, but the surface is not the only concern. It's what is occurring underground that should be the primary focus. These observations suggest even more strongly that the impacts we first encountered over a year ago and which were more comprehensively revealed on June 28th, are far larger and more sever than we first suspected. [pictures from this video are unavailable as our equipment has changed, and still shots are low resolution. I will try to get new video of this phenomenon however, this week.] The last time I saw this kind of vigorous bubbling
in a small pond was back during the 2004 seep on a neighbor's place probably
three miles away. The cedars around the pond had suddenly died as well as
those across the road - a whole hillside of them. Obviously, this pointed to
a methane seep. At the time, the COGCC was making some effort to determine
the extent of the 2004 seep in our area, and the infamous Amos area (well
blowout) - even further away was also under scrutiny. The neighbor's
property with the bubbling pond was the focus of big-time drilling (which
the owner shared a strong economic interest in). That particular pond was a stock
pond which was frequented by cattle. In the twenty years we've lived in the
area I'd never seen it bubble - let alone to such a degree. I don't doubt
that with decomposing manure it did not ever bubble, but it must have
been infrequent enough to not be of notice. I used to help this neighbor
pull calves and spent quite a bit of time around the area. When I notified
the COGCC of the sudden appearance of vigorous bubbling, the COGCC sampled
the pond and determined the gas was - again - biogenic. Around a week later the pond
was dozed in and the cedars burned in a fire. Strange coincidence you might
say. |
|
This is reprinted from Week 46, but it is so disgusting in the face of how poorly the 2004 seep has been administered and in the face of this new seep and how poorly it has been handled, that I am going to run it until the new rules are drafted in the hope that this inappropriate exemption will be stricken. If you have a moment, we sure would appreciate you voicing your support of striking this language. It only favors a big-time polluter at our expense. The Commissioners are in talks right now on what language to leave in and what language to take out. Thanks for any help you may try to bring to this situation. We definitely appreciate it! Here's where you can write to the COGCC: or call 1-888-235-1101 Relative to water quality standards, industry stands to enjoy all sorts of exemptions - particularly where they have polluted and continue to pollute West Divide Creek. Despite assurances we keep receiving from EnCana that the seep upstream is likely to go away, some folks appear to be reserving serious doubts. This has been pretty typical over the years. We're told all sorts of stuff, when reality is often something very different. But, an ignorant public is a placated public. Basically, what you see below is a lot of scientific sounding stuff, but what it appears to mean is this: Limits to contaminants are to be kept low in normal circumstances, but where contamination has occurred before September 14, 2004 - a higher level of toxic metal and other contamination is to be acceptable. Acceptable to who? Not us, for sure! Who is deciding here and on what basis who gets clean water and who doesn't. Of course, the seep in 2004, occurred in April of 2004. So, EnCana gets a fat exemption and we get to be poisoned. Why should EnCana benefit from these lower standards, by not being required to clean up to a safer standard the contamination they were found by the COGCC to have caused. And how did they cause the 2004 seep? The Schwartz well bore hole lost hundreds of feet of cement - presumably into a fault they intersected while drilling. They knew they had lost the cement, but decided to frac (blow the hell out of production zones with explosives) anyway. The same genius who ordered that frac job was still conducting the orchestra when we first started noticing bubbling again in 2007 after the Schwartz site was re-entered. It seems, based on staff-recommended "clarifications" of the safe levels rule, the COGCC feels that since it's just our one well in the creek downstream (plus all of Silt and Rifle), it's okay for us folks to suck up some extra "contaminant of concern" like toluene: 560 / 1,000; or, xylenes: 1,400 / 10,000. This is how the public is protected from industrial pollution. As you read the stuff below keep in mind the "fist number / second number" thing. Basically, the first number is considered the safer number. The second number is considered "maximum exposure" - you know... how much you can be expected to consume before your asshole falls out - stuff like that. How about these schmucks that decide it's okay for all of us to drink it, come and drink it themselves. "Concentrations taken from CDPHE-HMWMD Table 1 Colorado
Soil Evaluation Values (December 2007). Now, if I am misinterpreting this, then someone from the OCGCC needs to point it out. But it sure as hell looks to me like once, again, our health is on the chopping block for the benefit of billion dollar business. If you want to check these re-writes out for yourself, Go to the COGCC
homepage http://cogcc.state.co.us/
and scroll down the page until you find the big blue link to: "Draft Rules
with Clarifications (06/20/2008): Draft rules including previously released
clarifications and alternative language" |
|
"Inconvenient truths must be acknowledged, if we are to have wise governance." -- Al Gore, 2008 Democratic National Convention |
|
Updates Canary
Watch Stand
Tall Beacons and Triumphs Image
Gallery |
|
All contents of this site, unless
otherwise noted are copyrighted by Lisa Bracken, 2007-2008. All rights are
reserved. |
