Chesapeake Energy "also never notified the Caddo sheriff's office, which learned of the incident through neighbors. Local authorities, such as police or sheriff's offices, are supposed to be notified first when there is an environmental incident, according to DEQ."
These are among findings in Caddo Sheriff Steve Prator's investigation into the deaths of the cows. His report has been sent to the Caddo district attorney's office, state police, DEQ and the state Natural Resources Department. It's up to the district attorney whether to pursue the issue of timeliness of notification, Prator said, though he did not know what criminal charges might apply in this situation. No official cause of the cattle deaths has been made public. DEQ's enforcement division has the case under review.
When no state agency would take responsibility for determining the cause of death of the cows, Prator concluded that chemicals in the spill killed the cows.
In a letter dated June 16 and in DEQ public files, Chesapeake Energy official Steve Turk summarizes what happened April 28 and includes a chronology of events. The chronology begins at 3:30 p.m. April 28, [when the] "fourth stage of a 'frac' was completed."
Turk's letter states: "During a routine well stimulation/formation fracturing operation by Schlumberger for Chesapeake, it was observed that a portion of mixed 'frac' fluids, composed of over 99 percent freshwater, leaked from vessels and/or piping onto the well pad."
The spill was not reported, the missive states, because it was not a "reportable quantity" under state and federal regulations, but water and soil analysis found that some of the site contractor's "products" mixed with storm water runoff and flowed into the field.
The letter from Chesapeake Energy says neither that company nor Schlumberger has had access to the reports on the cattle and can't determine the cause of death.
"The chonology continues into the next day, noting that the dead cattle were buried that afternoon..."
For the complete story from the Shreveport Times, CLICK HERE.
WHOA! Just registered!
Only 1% was chemicals and it was in such a small amount it was not even reportable. Yet it killed 17 healthy cows!!!! HOLY COW!
That's some deadly sh*t and it needs to be regulated!
A Bit of Backstory...from a KATC.COM post at the time of the incident:
Tissue samples from the dead cattle and one survivor were sent to Texas A and M for analysis, Sam Irwin, spokesman for the state Department of Agriculture and Forestry said. The parish landfill refused to take the carcasses, so they were taken to the owners' land for burial, Irwin said.
Posted: May 19, 2009 08:53 PM
Updated: May 26, 2009 04:59 PM
KSLA News 12 Headlines:
CLARIFICATION: The Department of Environmental Quality has not confirmed the cause of death of the  cows that shared the pasture with the Chesapeake Energy Branch 2 H-1 well site on April 28th. While the Regional Manager of the Northwest Regional Office of the DEQ has confirmed there was a chemical spill on the site, and that they have found elevated levels of potassium chloride in the soil there, no conclusion as to the exact cause of the cattle deaths has been officially determined. Test results on the cows themselves and what may have caused their deaths have not been released.
YES, the deadly sh*t needs to be regulated...
but industry won't release the ingredients in their toxic cocktail,
and no one seems to be releasing the results of the autopsies...
How can you regulate what you can't prove?
CONTACT: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.!
Point to the deaths of these 17 cattle, and to the admission of the fact that there was less than 1% of toxic fracking fluid mixed in with over 99% freshwater that killed them, point to the 52 cases of "methane migration", to the complaints from more than 32 households, to the dozen homes with contaminated wells, to the gas leak this week in Lycoming County, the toxic flaring, the contaminated creek, the contaminated spring, the 4 contaminated wells serving private homes. Remind him of the problems in Dimock.
Agree wholeheartedly with his recent comment, "Natural gas comes with its own set of environmental caveats. It is a carbon-based fuel and [its] extraction from shale, the most significant new source, if not managed carefully, can cause serious water, land use, and wildlife impacts, especially in the hands of irresponsible producers and lax regulators."If he's going to advocate the use of natural gas instead of coal, tell him it's not good enough to simply say extraction needs to be managed carefully! Tell him to look at what's "on the record" so far! Ask him to help insure the gas drilling industry is made more responsible. Ask him how he thinks these industry violatons of Life Itself can be prevented?