|
Seep Update
On Monday,
06-30-08 a COGCC field inspector came out and took a look around at the seep
in Divide Creek.
Characterizations of the June 28, 2008 as
compared to the April 01, 2004 seep To characterize exactly what is occurring, I want
to be very clear. In 2004, the seep that occurred (and is still active) as a
result of an improperly cemented well originating on the Schwartz site -
which EnCana fraced anyway,
created a tremendous release of natural gas into the environment. That gas
manifest itself in may ways - not all of which we feel were
acknowledged. However, there were certain visual symptoms present such as:
Natural gas bubbling into the waters of Divide Creek as well as the
surrounding soil embankments. This gas bubbled at different rates in
different areas. One area for instance, might yield a stream of bubbles that
only vented from a small nickel or quarter-sized hole intermittently. Other
vents were much larger and expressed gas more regularly. One vent in
particular, the "mother vent" we called it, was the size of a softball and
vigorously blew lots of small bubbles all at once (this one still blows) and
the monitor well a few feet down stream of it still detects benzene.
You can view the bubbling by clicking on the Timeline
link. Also, another very notable visual
symptom of the seep in 2004 was the presence of orange gunk associated with
underground springs on Mr. Langegger's property, which was the focus of the
so-called "main seep". Also associated with the orange gunk was the
proliferation of bio-film. This bio-film was identified by the COGCC as
microbial activity. The springs flowed in a way that generated the orange
gunk and biofilm until the Schwartz well was remediated, whereupon the
springs eventually returned to their normal state. You can see pictures of
the orange gunk and biofilm by clicking on the
Timeline link. We are seeing, now on our
place - as of
June 28th, 2008, an identical-appearing spring type seep event, but without
the associated vigorous bubbling in the creek. In other words, there are
springs seeping from the banks of the streambed which are producing orange
gunk and biofilm which appear exactly like that which we saw associated
with the 2004 event. There are several of these small springs, but even
where there appears to be no evident spring, we are seeing orange gunk amass
in certain other areas - all of which are aligned along an approximately 50
- 60 foot bank. The area has grown from approximately 40 feet to encompass
ten to fifteen more feet as of 07-01-08 when a collection of other seeping
orange gunk was found. Picture to follow:
Orange gunk seeping from bank just West of beaver
house. [06-30-08]
Additionally, this new event has black substances seeping from the soils
adjacent to Divide Creek. These we've never seen before, even in 2004. Small
- from a penny to the size of a half-dollar vent holes are oozing a black
substance - or perhaps only water or other clear substance that has some
kind of black material associated with it. Three new vents were discovered
on 07-01-08 - one about five feet, and the other two about fifteen feet West
of the other two previously reported. In the early morning the three new
vents ran black - and so did the other two first discovered, but by
afternoon, the oozing from two of three newly discovered vents had subsisted
and the two vents appeared dry. All of the black seeping vents are
sequential in a relative east-west linear orientation. The two wet/dry holes
were furthest West and were about the size of a quarter. Photos to follow
One of three newly discovered black vents
[06-30-08]
 |
|
 |
| One of the wet/dry black vents
[06-30-08] |
|
Second of the two wet/dry black
vents [06-30-08] |
[Notation added 07-13-08] There is also - about
ten feet away to the east (closer to the creek) - a 4' length of small dry
vents that run parallel to the linear depression and other vents noted
above.
So, as far as the black seeping goes - we have no
idea. But, as far as the orange seeping goes, we've seen it before. And
here's how it breaks down....
1) This
seep is a seep. Substances are seeping from the banks on the creek. There
has been, however, some confusion over this word as some folks are tending
to assume that it bears all of the same traits as the seep event in 2004. To
be clear. We are unsure of the source of the seeping and hope to find out.
We do not know whether it is toxic or whether it is relative to any
industrial activity. All we know is what we observe and have comparatively
observed.
2) We
have only observed orange seeping goo twice in the twenty plus years we've
lived here. Once in 2004 and now. In
2004 and coinciding with the massive release of natural gas from the
Schwartz well, there appeared small distributed areas on our property which
bore similar characteristics to the orange seep and biofilm gunk - though
these were not as prevalent and they disappeared soon after the Schwartz
well was remediated. This suggests that the seep in 2004 manifest
itself on our property and was successfully remediated but, it was never
acknowledged by the COGCC.
Relative to the new orange seep discovery on June 28th, we have never
observed any isolated seepage like this
before on our property to this incredible magnitude - and again, the COGCC
seems reluctant to take our concerns seriously.
I have provided on-line
photographs so that you can compare for yourself the June 28th seep
discovery to the identically-appearing phenomenon which occurred on Mr.
Langegger’s property in 2004.
3) After
the Schwartz well was remediated, Mr. Langegger’s springs also returned to
normal.
4) Though
the COGCC cries foul that we raise concerns over bubbling in the beaver
pond, we’ve never had bubbling in our
ponds until the seep in 2004 where it occurred in the original beaver pond.
5) Though
it was deemed biogentic – and may well have been – it, too, disappeared
after the Schwartz well was remediated. Again, evidence that the seep
manifest itself on our property, but was not acknowledged by the COGCC. Again, we were seen to have been overreacting
to what was quickly and I believe inappropriately deemed by the COGCC to be
events naturally occurring within the beaver pond environment.
7) The
Schwartz site was re-entered a year ago – which is when we began to see
bubbling in the ponds again.
8) The
bubbling continued to increase resulting in a continuous 8 minute expression
of gas (which is when we ran out of film for our camera) – then established
vent holes, then biofilm, and now, finally – almost a year later - this
extreme proliferation of orange substance and what probably is microbial
matter.
9)
So, the obvious question is: What is its
source? Why is it no where else when the environment on our property is
consistently similar?
10)
Although there is no Pepsi-can-like
fizzing in the creek…. although no one is lighting a match to a funnel and
creating a foot-tall flame, I would hope that folks realize that while such
a proliferation of algae - black, red, white, black or yellow - may be
common in other areas of the country – in other environments, it is not
common here, and has occurred only one other time in association with a
faulty well – and disappeared when the well was correctly cemented.
As landowners without investigative resources,
all we can do is judge based on our observations. We live with this land and
know its nuances intimately. We've lived through seasons of abundant rain
and drought, through high runoff and low - prolonged and rapid. We've lived
with new beaver ponds and old, nearly still waters and vigorous stream
flows. We've seen temperatures run the gamut from thirty-two below zero to a
hundred and five degrees. We've seen wildlife of all types an observed their
migratory and other habits. We can only attest to our astute observations
over all of these years, and certainly we've no reason to lie. We only want
to know what is occurring in association with renewed drilling that
coincides with the appearance of seeping matter similar to what we saw in
2004 that was the result of an improperly cemented well. And we know that
truth can only be determined by facts on our part and diligent, inclusive
and deductive reasoning on the part of the COGCC.
So - as suggested by a friend
last night - I ask COGCC.... if the orange goo is algae or microbial
in nature,
1) What exactly are the orange
and black substances?
2) Is it potentially toxic to humans or aquatic life?
3) What is the normal amount one could expect to find in the environment?
4) What might be considered excessive?
5) What nutrient sources are contributing to such an intense proliferation?
6) Where might these nutrient sources originate?
7) When the orange seep here appears identical to Langegger's orange goopy
seep in
2004, how is this different?
COGCC Inspector and
Environmental Protection Specialist visit the site
Monday mid-morning - COGCC field
inspector showed up with a neighbor who also wanted to see the seep. This
neighbor experienced the full-effect of the 2004 seep and, like me,
expressed concern as to what he might be seeing. We discussed the issue and
I shared with the inspector a few of my thoughts on the previous
investigation, and summarized the circumstances of our bubbling beaver pond
from 2004 as well as this event which began in July of 2007. He felt
concerned enough to recommend sampling from the COGCC environmental team.
Monday afternoon - The
environmental specialist showed up and collected samples of what we assume
to be water. His initial field assessment suggested that the orange goo is
bacterial in nature, and he demonstrated with a stick how the stuff breaks
up when disturbed. He also advanced a hypothesis as to what might have
caused the situation, if in fact, the samples show that substance to be
biologic in nature.
One possibility suggested by
COGCC environmental specialist...
He suggested that during high
water runoff situations, organic matter is scoured from the streambed, also
pointing out that streambeds can move. He said that once high water
subsides, the organic matter settles where it is and if there is a
collection of water left behind which is essentially stagnant, then, in the
presence of sunlight and other favorable conditions, microbial growth can
proliferate.
I enjoyed hearing his thoughts on
possible explanations, and I accepted his theory as a general one, but then
noted variables associated with this situation he had not seemed to account
for.
1) Our small 60 acre property can
be considered a micro-environment (particularly the linear stretch of creek
which bisects it). This micro-environment shares similar characteristics of
humidity, sunlight, temperature, flora, fauna, and, along the creek, even
general elevation excepting a slight anticline causing the water to flow
downhill. One could even expect the organic matter from run off to be
distributed in a relatively consistent manner along the creek on our
property. Why then, is this seep only present in this one area approximately
60' long?
2) The generally ponded area
where he sampled may act like a conversion tank allowing biological matter
to proliferate, but it is not stagnant. It is being fed by a spring. The
transfer of fluid from this depression area is slow, but steady. I showed
him another spring (photo below) and demonstrated where the goo had
collected around free flowing water coming from underground. So why is there
microbial growth here to such a degree - when the water is anything but
stagnant?
3) I then demonstrated the debris
flow from run off which had collected some sixty or seventy yards from the
orange seep site and the black seep site. The debris floats on a pool of
water which is trapped in a sandbar depression. It appeared more stagnant
than any of the orange seep site areas, yet - the water only showed some
green algae along its edges despite hosting a rich diversity of micro and
macro organic matter. So where is the orange goo here?
He said he didn't know. It was
only a theory. And as far as I am concerned, it was a good theory - and I
appreciated his offer to advance it. But it was quite general and when held
against comparables which should have produced similar findings, the actual
observations were inconsistent.
Sampling
 |
|
 |
| COGCC sampling the orange water.
Six vials were collected. [06-30-08] |
|
COGCC photographing the black
seep. (one 2 oz. +/- jar of mud and goo was collected) [06-30-08] |
Spring near rock seeping from bank [06-30-08]
In this photo, you can see here where a small spring is seeping under a rock
on the bank. Here, what I assume to be water, is flowing out at a quick
enough pace that bacteria (if that's what the orange stuff is) can only
accumulate on the peripherals. So, since this source of water hasn't yet
flowed into the pool and therefore hasn't had much of an opportunity
to be digested by the bacteria and potentially converted, maybe this would
have been a good place to sample. Perhaps it would provide a purer source
of, again what I assume is water, coming directly from underground - and
therefore, perhaps it would also provide a purer source of whatever else may
be present in the water that is attracting the bacteria to such an intense
degree. I pondered this after the sampling on Monday, and called the COGCC
enviro guy Wednesday morning to see if he'd like to revisit the area and
take a look at this tiny spring to sample.
Allow me to digress.... on Monday
afternoon I got back up to the house and opened a letter from the COGCC.
Here is what it said....
A letter from COGCC....
"As you know since 2004, the
COGCC staff has responded to your concerns about potential gas seepage along
West Divide Creek on your property and to date we have not found any
indication that the seepage you have observed is related to oil and gas
activity. Last year both EnCana and COGCC investigated a similar allegation
and samples were collected in November and December 2007. In 2004, I
personally collected gas samples from your beaver ponds and at other
locations of concern to you. Since 2004, samples have been collected at 9
different locations. These samples have been collected by COGCC staff and 3rd
party consultants on behalf of EnCana. These samples have been analyzed for
a variety of parameters including natural gas compounds (methane, ethane,
propane, butane, pentane, hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane,
bacteria (iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and
cations, and other field and laboratory tests. To date, BTEX compounds have
not been detected in any of the samples. Although methane has been
detected, stable isotope analysis indicates that it is biogenic not thermogenic and the heavier natural gas compounds (propane, butane, pentane,
hexanes) that are part of the gas produced by the wells in your area have
not been detected. Some of the samples have been tested using biological
activity and reaction test (BART) techniques. BART analyses detect the
presence of iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime bacteria. Large
quantities of these bacteria were detected in the samples tested. These
naturally occurring nuisance bacteria produce iridescent sheens on stagnant
water, iron hydroxide (orange/rust colored) stained slime, black slime, and
red, orange, and/or black particles. In 2004, during my inspections along
West Divide Creek I observed this kind of biological activity at numerous
locations and I believe that I pointed out occurrences to you at a couple of
locations on your property.
From the photographs you
have provided us, it appears that what you are observing are deposits
related to biological activity of these nuisance bacteria. Nonetheless
Chris Canfield (COGCC EPS II) is on his way out to your property to inspect
and collect samples for chemical analysis. In addition, earlier today Gary
Helgeland (COGCC field inspector) inspected what you are interpreting as new
seeps along West Divide Creek.
It is unfortunate that for a
variety of reasons you were not able to contact the COGCC this weekend;
however, I am disappointed that you did not allow the COGCC time to
investigate your allegation before you contacted the press and the EPA.
As always COGCC will provide
all of the analytical results to you. Please call me if you have any
questions or if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Regards."
It was a good summary of tests to date, and I
appreciate this person's attention to specifics. This is my reply:
"As you know, no bubbling in our beaver pond
occurred prior to the Schwartz well event in 2004. As you know, or perhaps
you don’t know because of a failure to follow-up, the bubbling ceased after
the Schwartz well was remediated. As you perhaps know, the bubbling in
Divide Creek was initially discovered on Mr. Thompson’s and our property,
yet – was never, to our knowledge, tested nor was it ever the focus of
remediation. As you may or may not know, because of a failure to follow-up
that, the bubbling in the creek on those properties also subsided after
remediation of the Schwartz well. As you know, that location is just
upstream from our water well. As you also may know, just prior to the
Schwartz incident in 2004 the Arbaney well site experienced significant
problems, causing a sub-surface disturbance that extended approximately a
mile onto our property – so much of a disturbance that one neighbor’s home
was knocked off its foundation and another neighbor noted a subsequent
difference in the height of a hillock that runs parallel between the Arbaney
well site and our home. As you may know, the Arbaney well site experienced
seeps around this same time. As you also may know, none of these events were
even considered correlative which may explain your evident difficulty in
recognizing the potential or actual extent of the real and potentially
far-reaching impacts associated with the Schwartz and perhaps Arbaney
events.
You’re right, I do know, yet
appreciate your reminding me of the COGCC’ sampling efforts on our behalf. I
do hope, however, you understand that this situation appears to be dynamic.
I would certainly hope that you don’t consider the COGCC’s most recent
effort, when the creek was frozen, to be sufficient in rendering a
conclusion when these circumstances have never been seen before on our
property to this dramatic of a degree, and only once, slightly so, during
the 2004 seep event.
The following may help
explain our perspective on this issue.
1)
This seep is a seep. Substances are seeping from the banks on the
creek.
2)
This has never happened before other than the event in 2004 where I
have provided on-line comparable photographs to show this
identical-appearing phenomenon on Mr. Langegger’s property.
3)
After the Schwartz well was remediated, Mr. Langegger’s spring
cleared up.
4)
We’ve never had bubbling in our pond until the seep in 2004.
5)
Though it was deemed biogentic – and may well have been – it, too,
disappeared after the Schwartz well was remediated.
6)
Yet – our pond was never considered an aspect of the 2004 event.
Again, we were seen to have been overreacting to what was quickly and I
believe inappropriately deemed by your agency to be events naturally
occurring within the beaver pond environment.
7)
The Schwartz site was re-entered a year ago – which is when we began
to see bubbling in the ponds again.
8)
The bubbling continued to increase resulting in a continuous 8 minute
expression of gas (which is when we ran out of film for our camera) – then
established vent holes, then biofilm, and now, finally – almost a year later
- this extreme proliferation of what probably is microbial matter.
9)
But, what is its source? Why is it no where else when the environment
on our property is consistently similar?
10)
Although there is no Pepsi-can-like fizzing in the creek…. although
no one is lighting a match to a funnel and creating a foot-tall flame, I
would hope that you, at least, might realize, that while such a
proliferation of algae - black, red, white, black or yellow - may be common
in other areas of the country – in other environments, it is NOT common
here, and has occurred only once in association with a faulty well – and
disappeared when the well was correctly cemented.
I am disheartened that such
an event can occur and no one acknowledges the negative impact or alteration
in the environment and therefore attempts to account for a possible cause,
beyond initial parameters of identification of gas – which as you surely
know is complex. It seems to be generally regarded as simply a change,
whether or not a degradation, and everyone moves on. We believe that when
EnCana suggests that this area or region is riddled with seeps that have
existed for thousands of years, it is a mischaracterization used to
misdirect attention and defer accountability while continuing to bring
change to a fragile environment which, because of it highly vertically
faulted nature, should probably not be drilled until a way can be found to
do so without affecting the environment as they have and continue to do.
I can appreciate the fact
that the COGCC is understaffed and tight-budgeted. What I cannot appreciate
is detecting major changes in an environment that has remained consistently
whole and healthy with the exception of introduced and affecting industrial
activities. Nor can I appreciate a failure to fully account for hydro and
geological implications related to those activities.
If you would like to observe
ponded areas on our property rich with micro-and macro organic matter both
in a decaying state as well as burgeoning with life, I would be happy to
take you on a tour, so that you can see for yourself that this situation is
indeed anomalous.
Perhaps, given the
explanation above you can better appreciate my sense of “urgency” given this
situation appears to have been progressing for nearly a year, and finally
culminated in truly alarming concern.
Thank you, however, for your
thoughtful reply, Lisa Bracken"
Crackpots and
Environmental Queues
On Tuesday evening the same
friend who suggested some of the seven questions above to ask the COGCC
expressed serious concern about the seep in light of the recent spill and
water contamination near Parachute. He said the man who consumed benzene
could have just as easily been seen as a crackpot had the benzene levels
been just beneath the state's Water Quality Control Commission standards
deemed safe for human consumption. In the case of the newly discovered seep,
he worries that arbitrary thresholds could make what would otherwise be a
concerning situation seem benign. I am not a crackpot, though I don’t mind
looking like one. Looks are superficial. People will see what they wish to
see - either way. I am willing to put my reputation on the line because I
know the seep is not normal. The truth is the truth, and all I can do is
report what I see together with a diligent presentation of the parameters
which illicit my concern. But, we’ll have to wait and see what and how the
science is presented. How the COGCC takes its queue. What the COGCC deems
worthy of consideration. This is where truth and supposition can divide.
Then, only time will be left to tell the tale.
The response so far by the
COGCC - (I am speaking about the letter sent by an environmental supervisor
- not the inspector or the specialist's reactions), demonstrates the same
level of reluctance to examine the broader scope of circumstances and
initiate serious scientific inquiry into cause and effect. Back in 2004,
wave upon wave of denial washed upon us and it was that level of reluctance
that made everything so difficult. Had there been better cooperation in the
beginning and a genuine good faith effort to determine cause and effect -
both by the COGCC and EnCana who was found to have caused the seep -
everyone could have gotten on with the important work of remediation. As it
is, still today, Cordilleran Compliance Services who is contracted by EnCana
to remediate the seep on Langegger's property, is fussing around with the
mother vent and still does not know to what degree seasonal changes like
temperature and water flow affect the seep - though they know it does
produce an effect.
This situation is complex and the reason for that, we believe, is because of
the way the seep in 2004 was handled by the COGCC. There seemed to be a
concerted effort to minimize acknowledgement of the broader scope of impacts
from that event on adjacent lands. Of course, any study or investigation can
be contained within any scope depending upon which variables are considered.
We feel that not only were certain physical characteristics ignored, but
also that certain potentially correlative and mitigating aspects of the
event were compartmentalized and minimized in that way also. For instance,
a kick to the Arbaney well only weeks before the Schwartz event (according
to a neighbor) lowered an entire hillock and (more well-known) knocked a
neighbor’s home off its foundation. The same ground disturbance nearly
knocked my mother to her knees – and she was around a mile away. Yet, this
event was not considered in the investigation – in fact, when I mentioned it
to COGCC, there was denial it ever happened, despite there being a report to
the contrary. (The photo on the homepage depicts that event). Also, despite
their being an estimated 115 million cubic feet of gas released during that
event only a single 24-hour air monitoring event was conducted. An aquatic
life study was commissioned by EnCana the results of which were looked
forward to by the COGCC – yet that study was never released. These are the
things that make it complex, and a seeming reluctance on the part of an
investigating body to conduct proper scientific inquiry only complicates and
makes more difficult an already challenging situation.
|
