Tom Shepstone
Natural Gas NOW
…
…
Craig Steven’s deposition revealed not only that he was a paid fractivist, not a victim, but also the nature of the Dimock water quality hustle.
The Dimock water quality hustle has been going on for a decade already, but the true nature of the whole thing is revealed in Craig Steven’s recent deposition, which is now matter of public record. Tuesday, I used the deposition to illustrate how Stevens had been recruited and paid to play the victim on behalf of Food & Water Watch and the Catskill Mountainkeeper. That was bad enough, but there are other revelations just as astonishing. Among them is the manner in which the Dimock water quality narrative was manufactured.
That Dimock water quality narrative, of course, has assigned complete and absolute responsibility for any water quality problems experienced in Dimock to Cabot Oil & Gas. Nothing else has mattered to the propagandists; not the burning spring water at Salt Springs reported two centuries ago, not the EPA study and not the evidence from early geological surveys. None of that has altered the mindset determined to believe each and every instance of high methane, arsenic in the water, etc. has been 100% the fault of cabot Oil & Gas, even in cases such as Ray Kemble’s where his water well was in the midst of a junkyard.
Yes, that’s the narrative and an empathetic press has largely bought it. Moreover, paid activists such as Craig Stevens have propagated it throughout the country. Here, in fact is Stevens speaking to members of the New York State General Assembly on January 10, 2013, some six years ago. Watch and listen as he talks about Ray Kemble’s water:
Notice what Steven says as he holds a jug of water and some papers aloft (emphasis added):
“This is the water from Dimock, Pennsylvania; Ray Kemble’s well from June of this year. That is Ray’s pre-drill tests that were done by Cabot showing absolutely nothing wrong with the water and no methane in it before drilling occurred.”
Now, bear this in mind as I take you through key parts of the deposition last week. Let’s start with this innocent questioning by Cabot counsel Amy Barrette:
Q. Do you know what benzene is?
A. What benzene is, yes.
Q. What’s benzene?
A. It’s a highly cancer causing chemical that can come out — it can be in water or it can be out in the air in exhaust from a compressor station or — or a C&G filling station.
Q. And what about toluene, do you know what that is?
A. Toluene is also — it’s part of BTEX, B-T-E-X, benzene, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene I think is the other one, I’m not really positive, I’m not a chemist, but —
Q. But also considered cancer causing, correct?
A. BTEXs are highly volatile.
Q. And is my understanding correct, you would not want to drink water that had benzene or toluene in it, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you would not consider water that had benzene or toluene in it safe to drink, correct?
A. I don’t —
MR. POSEY: I’m going to object, you can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea, but I wouldn’t — I wouldn’t drink it.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. And would you consider water that had benzene or toluene in it to be contaminated?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: If it didn’t preexist in it, then I guess that’s a contaminant in water, yes, from what I’ve read.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. Well, benzene and toluene don’t naturally occur in water, correct?
A. I — I’m guessing that’s the case, I don’t seem to have any over on the other side of town from there, so I guess it doesn’t naturally occur in water.
This, as you might expect, set the stage for what was to come much later in the day (emphasis added):
Q. Okay. Mr. Stevens, I’m handing you what’s been marked for identification purposes Cabot Exhibit 5 and Cabot Exhibit 6, those are two documents that you brought today, one is the July 7, 2008 water test result from — includes a letter from T.S. Calkins, cover letter is dated July 7, 2008, and then there is a report date of — on the next page of Northeastern Environmental Laboratories, Inc., a report date of 6/20/2008. It indicates it’s a well water sample taken on May 28, 2008, for Raymond Kemble, and that’s Exhibit 5, Cabot Exhibit 5. Cabot Exhibit 6, I’m just going to have you explain it. It appears to be just a listing — some handwriting that says Ray Kemble PA DEP water test redacted. Start with Cabot Exhibit Number 5, where did you get this document?
A. I got it from Ray Kemble.
Q. And did you review this document?
A. I’ve looked at it, I don’t know how to exactly review everything on it, but I’ve looked at the document.
Q. Okay. And you understand that this is his predrill test results, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you understand that his predrill test results indicated that he had the presence of benzene and toluene in his water predrill, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea. I get confused by the limits and the numbers on this, I just left this as a predrill test copy.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. Okay. Well, you have stood up on video in front of committees and said that Mr. Kemble — I mean holding this exact document saying that Mr. Kemble’s water tested completely fine and there was nothing in his water. So did you actually — did you look at the document before you — you made — testified before these committees?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: I have no idea, I don’t — .002 looks like a pretty small number so you guys are the ones that have done thousands of water tests, Cabot has, so I’m wondering if that’s reflective of a very low number or very high, I don’t know.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. Okay. So let me make sure I understand this. Earlier you said, we were talking, I asked you if you knew what benzene was and what toluene was and you said they were cancer causing — highly cancerous I believe you said BTEX and that you wouldn’t drink water that had it in it, and here we have Mr. Kemble’s predrill test before any drilling was done showing that he had benzene and toluene in his water and yet you stood up in front of these regulatory bodies and said that his water was totally fine before drilling, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I have no idea what you’re getting at. I see very, very low numbers .002, that’s in the thousandth range. So what — do you have a copy of the one — you guys did tests every week, where is the copy showing it after the testing, maybe it was above .002. So I’m not — I’m not a water expert as far as looking at testing data, but those look like low numbers unless somebody can educate me that it’s a high number.
Q. So it’s a — is a low number of benzene acceptable to you, is that what you’re saying?
A. I don’t know, is a low number of methane acceptable?
Q. I’m asking you is a low number of benzene in someone’s water acceptable to you?
MR. POSEY: Objection.
THE WITNESS: No —
MR. POSEY: You can answer, if you know.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I — I have absolutely no idea what the — what the allowance is because there are allowance with every chemical in any kind of water.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. Does having an allowance of a chemical in water make it acceptable to you to be in the water?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: I would rather if it was my water said 000, but I don’t know what the levels are that they would call acceptable.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. I understand that, Mr. Stevens. But you were giving testimony before committees, governmental agencies and committees saying that Mr. Kemble’s water was fine beforehand; the truth is you didn’t know if his water was fine beforehand, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: I was — I didn’t know him beforehand. All I know is from the condition I saw when it was different.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. That’s right. So when you stood up at a hearing and you held up this test result and said his water was fine, you had no idea what you were talking about, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: Well, mostly we’re looking at zero hydrocarbons, that’s what I usually look at unless it says no hydrocarbons detected. So that is one aspect of what I looked at for — because I know right now there is no drilling there because of hydrocarbons. So if there’s zero, then that’s one aspect of this test that was changed — I guess changed. I don’t know these levels. I wouldn’t know, I’d have to get a water expert and consult them on exactly what .002 or any of these is, but…
Q. But — and you’re not a water expert, correct?
A. I’m not a water quality expert, no….
That was some squirming, wasn’t it? It was shortly after this that Barrette played the above video. And, then some further questioning took place:
Q. Okay. Now, you heard what you just said, absolutely nothing in the water, correct? And you held up a copy of the predrill, correct?
A. I believe I said no methane in — I thought we were going to talk about methane.
Q. We’re going to talk about methane too in a minute.
A. Okay. Good.
Q. But can you just answer my question, you said there was nothing in his water, correct?
A. That’s what I said.
Q. And sitting here today, you’re saying you didn’t understand these numbers, correct?
A. I — those were low enough where I was told or assumed that those numbers were acceptable levels detection limit whatever that means so, yeah, I didn’t have any idea that this would be considered contaminated water.
Q. Okay. So you had no idea that having a detectible levels of benzene and toluene in a predrill sample would indicate contaminated water, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: I’m not a water expert, so…
BY MS. BARRETTE:
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.
Q. Okay. Now, I’d like to talk about Cabot Exhibit Number 6. Could you explain — is that your handwriting at the top?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you explain what this is?
A. This was DEP testing of the entire Carter Road area, each one next to there had a name but it was redacted because DEP protects the — so the list that is marked — the asterisked ones were Ray Kemble.
Q. And how do you know that?
A. He — he told me and so I — I — he marked it, so I just took his word that that’s his — because we can’t — I couldn’t see it, there was no name next to it.
Q. So you just took Mr. Kemble’s word that these test results reflected his water?
A. That those asterisked items were reflecting his — I don’t see any names on here so — it’s redacted, so that’s what I got it from and that’s what I was told.
Q. And so you were using this to demonstrate contamination in Mr. Kemble’s water, correct?
A. To demonstrate contamination stating that this is Ray — this is Ray Kemble’s water, that I was told this is Ray Kemble’s water and the asterisked items were from his tests.
Q. And you have no idea, in truth, whether this even reflects Mr. Kemble’s water?
A. Well, I understand there’s copies of unredacted, but they weren’t made available, so I have to take his word for it.
Q. So, again, my question is you have no idea whether this — the asterisks represent Mr. Kemble’s water?
A. No.
MR. POSEY: Objection. Already asked and answered. You can —
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I’m taking his word for it, so…
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. So that’s a yes, you have no idea, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you are aware Mr. Kemble has had other water tests done on his water, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Have you seen those test results?
A. No, I have not accessed them. I know that all of the people in the area there had tons of tests, but I haven’t seen any done by any of the government agencies, that’s the only one I really would look at. They’re all redacted, so…
Q. And so did you ever ask Mr. Kemble for a copy of his test results?
A. No, I don’t have any other copies of his — of his test results besides those and that’s just marked.
Q. My question is did you ever ask him for any other copies of his test results?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. If I had these and that’s what he had marked, so I just took those.
Q. And so even though he had other test results done by the EPA and by ATSTR, you never asked him to see copies of those results, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, the EPA and ATSTR were marked, were not put names on either, there — they have a special nomenclature for it, so I don’t know which ones of those were whose. So, no, I didn’t.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. Are you aware Mr. Kemble just had test results done in 2017 by both the DEP and again by ATSTR?
A. I heard that they were testing in the area, so…
Q. And are you aware that they gave him copies of his test results?
A. No, I don’t have any other copies of his — of his test results besides those and that’s just marked.
Q. My question is did you ever ask him for any other copies of his test results?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. If I had these and that’s what he had marked, so I just took those.
Q. And so even though he had other test results done by the EPA and by ATSTR, you never asked him to see copies of those results, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, the EPA and ATSTR were marked, were not put names on either, there — they have a special nomenclature for it, so I don’t know which ones of those were whose. So, no, I didn’t.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. Are you aware Mr. Kemble just had test results done in 2017 by both the DEP and again by ATSTR?
A. I heard that they were testing in the area, so…
Q. And are you aware that they gave him copies of his test results?
A. I haven’t — I didn’t review those. I haven’t seen them.
Q. And did you ask Mr. Kemble for them?
A. There was no reason for it.
Q. There was no reason for it? Wouldn’t you want to see if the water got better?
A. He’ll — I guess he would tell me if the water was better or not.
Q. Wouldn’t that be important for you to know that — if his water turned up clean by the DEP?
A. I mean, I —
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: So I’ve gotten to the point in ten — nine years of I don’t care what the water test said, if I go turn the water on and it comes out smelling like a skunk, brown and bubbly, then there’s a problem. I’m not going to be a — I don’t have to be Bill Nye, the science guy, to figure out there might be some problems with the water. So so many tests were done at so many different parameters that I just go by the visual, by the odor, color, taste, clarity. Of course, I didn’t taste it, but I’m just looking at what parameters of change would be noticed and that’s what I see when I go to somebody’s house to look at their water. A lot of them have a lot of test results.
Q. And you have no idea whether anything about the color or clarity of Mr. Kemble’s water is the result of Cabot’s operations, correct?
A. Do I know? I know that the claim is the change was made after the fact, but did I see the water before, no.
Q. So you didn’t see the water before, you haven’t looked at any test results other than the two that we’ve just looked at, and yet you’re going around the country with a jug of water claiming that Cabot, in particular, has contaminated Mr. Kemble’s water, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection. You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, I’m — I’m — First Amendment says I can speak, so I’ve been — the other sites we mentioned have been abused a lot for everything I’m doing, so I’m sure that’s Cabot’s supporters. So I’m going around and my free speech rights says I can go and talk about water quality issues wherever I want to.
BY MS. BARRETTE:
Q. That’s right. And earlier I had actually talked to you about looking at records and you said yes, you would want to look at the records to make sure that the statements you were making were truthful and accurate, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And now as we sit here today we know that you didn’t even understand the records, you haven’t looked at any recent records, but yet you’re still going around and telling people and holding up a jug of water and telling people that Cabot has contaminated people’s water, correct?
MR. POSEY: Objection.
THE WITNESS: That video was from six years ago, so. I mean, that’s a pretty old video if you want to — I mean —
Amazing. That’s what you call a total demolition of the Dimock water quality narrative Food & Water Watch and Catskill Mountainkeeper paid Craig Stevens to advance. And, if you were wondering what those ATSDR and DEP test results in which Stevens showed no interest might have said, well you can find them here, because they were posted on-line by Stevens and Kemble friend Bill Huston. Funny that he never looked at them, isn’t it? It’s as if Stevens and company have never wanted the truth out about Dimock water quality, isn’t it?
This post appeared first on Natural Gas Now.
