Mouse Over to Stop Rotation & Read Ad

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Anti-Fracking Groups Paid Dimock Landowner Who Traveled Country Claiming Fracking Contaminated Water

The battle in Dimock, Pennsylvania between a group of landowners and Cabot Oil and Gas is one that has just refused to end.  Dimock resident Ray Kemble sparked the latest round of legal wrangling by filing what would appear to be a frivolous lawsuit that attempts to relitigate matters that had already been resolved through the court system, which prompted Cabot to turn around and sue Kemble and his attorneys.  The resulting legal discovery process has exposed some fascinating details about the nature of the claims that have been so highly publicized regarding Dimock's water.  It also seems to reveal that Kemble has been used as a pawn by anti-fracking groups, neighbors in pursuit of fame and cash, and seedy attorneys.

From Natural Gas Now:
Yes, following the hearings yesterday in Montrose and the big news about Food & Water Watch and Catskill Mountainkeeper funding Craig Stevens, his deposition by Cabot, which was made a part of the court record, was published by FrackNation. It is such fascinating reading that it’s going to take 2-3 posts to discuss it and all its implications. Suffice it to say it proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, the entire Dimock narrative as spun by fractivists, with the aid of a compromised press, has been a dirty lie. 
The transcript, a highlighted version of which may be found here, reveals six big things every person interested in the truth needs to know: 
  1. Ray Kemble has been the hapless victim of his friends, their manipulators and their funders.
  2. True believer Bill Huston, who has attached himself to what he thought was a noble cause, has also been a victim of these people, as well as his own delusions of grandeur.
  3. Craig Stevens has been a victim of his own considerable ability to do the sales hustle.
  4. Trial lawyers have been trying for years to leverage Dimock to make it rain high-payout lawsuits and haven’t cared who they’ve had use to get what they want.
  5. Fractivist groups such as Food & Water Watch and Catskill Mountainkeeper have coordinated with each other and trial lawyers to frame the false Dimock narrative using stooges only too willing to be used.
  6. The entire enterprise has been purchased with huge dark money donations from wealthy elites.
There’s so much to discuss from the deposition transcript, and it has to be read in its entirety to fully appreciate the points made above. Stevens repeatedly reversed himself during the deposition as evidence came forward from Cabot proving what he had earlier said just wasn’t so. Therefore, unless you read it all, you won’t appreciate how hard he worked to avoid disclosing who his enablers were.
That post goes on to share a chunk of Stevens' deposition, and you can read it and decide for yourself if he sounds like an individual whose statements ought to be trusted.

In another post, Natural Gas Now's Tom Shepstone examines more of Stevens' deposition.  Specifically, the post focuses on a section of the deposition where Stevens' testimony before the New York General Assembly was broken down.  In his testimony, Stevens held up a paper holding pre-drilling test results on Ray Kemble's water and emphatically stated that the tests showed that there was "absolutely nothing wrong with the water and no methane in it before drilling occurred.”

Here is a portion of that post:

Q. Okay. Now, you say that there was no methane detected in the water, correct? 
A. That’s what it says here, no hydrocarbons detected, yes. 
Q. That’s not my question, Mr. Stevens. You said on there, there was no methane detected in the water, correct? 
A. Prior to your — 
Q. What you said on the video, you said holding up this predrill sample, you said there was no methane detected in the water, correct? 
A. Correct. 
Q. Can you show me on this document, Cabot Exhibit Number 5, where there was a test for the dissolved methane in water? 
A. It says no hydrocarbons detected right at the bottom — 
Q. And what — 
A. — there. 
Q. — what that says, field notes, LEL, lower explosive limit, monitoring performed with a LEL monitor. Do you know what an LEL monitor is? 
A. It tests for lower explosive limits so that’s — I guess I learned it’s below 27 milligrams per liter. 
Q. And when — when you use an LEL meter, where are you testing for the methane? 
A. I have no idea, I’ve never used one. 
Q. So you don’t even understand what LEL — what this LEL meter was testing or where or how, correct? 
A. I’m not an expert on testing for methane. 
Q. Okay. Now, do you have an understanding or — so I guess it would come to a surprise to you to know that using an LEL meter you are actually testing for methane in the air? 
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know. 
THE WITNESS: I — I — yeah, I don’t know, so… 
BY MS. BARRETTE: 
Q. And there’s no test on here that shows what the dissolved methane is in water that shows that his water was being tested for dissolved methane, correct? 
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know. 
THE WITNESS: I don’t have any idea. It looks like not included in this, that portion was not included in this. 
BY MS. BARRETTE: 
Q. Okay. So you don’t know if there was dissolved methane in Mr. — Mr. Kemble’s water when you stood up there and said that in front of the New York Assembly, correct? 
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know. 
THE WITNESS: I don’t know. 
BY MS. BARRETTE: 
Q. Is that how you do consulting, you consult and make statements to government officials about things that you really don’t know about? 
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know. 
THE WITNESS: I try to be as informed as I can, but it’s hard to keep up with how much damage was done in that area. So everybody had different tests, every home had a different level of everything. So very hard to keep up with. 
BY MS. BARRETTE: 
Q. This is — you are here focusing in that video on Mr. Kemble’s water. If you were going to speak about Mr. Kemble’s water, wouldn’t it have been prudent to make sure that you knew and understood the test results about Mr. Kemble’s water? 
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know. 
THE WITNESS: I — I’ve seen methane in his water, so the testing data — this was prior to that, but after that massive — I mean, bubbles — a lot of bubbles in glasses of water. 
BY MS. BARRETTE: 
Q. And you — and you also said that you never saw Mr. Kemble’s water prior to 2010, correct? 
A. Well, that’s from 2013, the video, correct? 
Q. That’s correct. 
A. Okay. That’s after the fact. But, no, I did — had not seen his water before 2010. 
Q. So you don’t know if there — you could see methane bubbling in his water prior to 2010, correct? 
A. Correct.
There is much more to take in by reading the rest of that post.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Follow by Email