BLACKSVILLE, W.Va. -- Who killed Dunkard Creek?

Was it coal miners whose runoff wiped out aquatic life in the stream where locals have long fished and picnicked? Or was it Marcellus Shale drillers and the briny discharge from their wells that created a toxic algae bloom that left a miles-long trail of rotting fish along the West Virginia-Pennsylvania state line?

Two years after Dunkard Creek suffered one of the worst fish kills ever in West Virginia or Pennsylvania, the reason for the chemical changes that spawned it remain a mystery.

U.S. EPA has ended its investigation and pointed the finger at a local coal mine, Blacksville No. 2, and entered a multimillion-dollar settlement with the owner, Consol Energy Inc.

But the lead EPA biologist on the case has challenged that idea, saying that the most likely explanation for the fish kill involves the environmental effects of Marcellus Shale drilling.

Emails obtained by Greenwire through a Freedom of Information Act request show EPA biologist Lou Reynolds telling colleagues that coal mine drainage is unlikely to be the sole culprit.

"Something has changed in the mine pools," Reynolds wrote in a November 2009 email. The change, he said, could have come from miners digging deeper into a coal seam.

But it could also be the case, he said, that "Mining companies are disposing of [coalbed methane] and Marcellus water in the mine pool," or "Mining companies are taking [coalbed methane] and Marcellus water into their treatment ponds.

"One or any combinations of the above might be happening," Reynolds wrote.

Industry officials have pointed to a report authored by Reynolds, a Wheeling, W.Va.-based member of the EPA's regional freshwater biology team, to refute claims that drilling waste caused the fish kill. The most prominent of those claims came in the anti-drilling documentary "Gasland" (Greenwire, Feb. 24).

Though gas drilling was viewed as a likely culprit early on, EPA scientists never found solid proof that wastewater from the hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," of gas wells caused a fish kill on Dunkard Creek.

A year later when the fish kill did not repeat itself, Reynolds suggested to a colleague that one possible reason is "because this year they aren't dumping massive amounts of frac water into Dunkard. That is unsubstantiated -- but plausible."

Last November, Reynolds wrote to an EPA public affairs officer that "I am not so sure" that mining could account for both of the major chemical disturbances that preceded the fish kill.

The agency entered into an agreement in March with Consol Energy, which operates several local coal mines and manages drainage from the active and closed mines. The company agreed to pay $6 million in fines to settle water pollution allegations that included the Dunkard Creek fish kill. Consol made no admission of liability, but it agreed to spend up to $200 million on a water treatment plant (E&ENews PM, March 14).

A few days before the consent agreement was signed and announced this year, Reynolds wrote to a colleague that Marcellus operations on the creek are the most likely way for the fish-killing "golden algae" to spread.

"There is water that is removed from these streams for use in Marcellus fracking," he wrote. "There is always some amount of water that gets left in the tank and hoses that then gets put into other streams. By far, this is the most likely way that GA [golden algae] will be moved around."

6 Comments

1. 1. Postman1 02:29 PM 10/13/11

   "The allegations against Shipman, laid out in a grand jury presentment, say he improperly disposed of brine in tributaries of Dunkard Creek. But the specifics of the charges do not include anything that occurred upstream of the fish kill."
   After three pages of may's, and maybe's, the last paragraph negates the entire previous majority of the article, (salt water is deadly to fresh water fish) and the coal mine ends up being extorted by the EPA, rather than fight. End result is, we, the customers, will get the bill.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. ThisGameIsOver!! in reply to pokerplyer 07:01 PM 10/25/11

   If advocating alarmism has become necessary to stifle the compromise of our fundamental life support systems...then U.S. energy independence is secondary to ecological protection. We have our Sun and we have a multitude of great minds ready to apply sustainable technologies that will free all nations from any dependence on any other nation. This is where we must go. We will survive without the use of antiquated fuels...yet we will not survive without intact ecosystems and the water contained therein.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. bucketofsquid in reply to Postman1 02:31 PM 10/26/11

   I agree completely. Salt water from fracking is deadly to fish so I don't see how the mines could be the issue unless the frackers were sending the flowback to the mine retaining pools and the mines released it into the stream.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. rockpicker 10:01 PM 10/26/11

   It seems that some of those commenting (and some people at EPA) are really unfamiliar with coal mining, gas drilling, and the setting of Dunkard Creek. The TDS components can come from mining and gas, but also from other sources. For instance, water in the coal being mined is saltier that ocean water just a short distance away at the same depth. As dry as the area was at the time, the mine drainage could easily have been salty enough to account for that component in the creek water.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Bops in reply to pokerplyer 06:48 PM 3/16/12

   (advocate for alarmist on anything related to the US being energy independent.)
   That's not true. Someone has to be paying you to make these silly comments, what other reason could it be?
   
   
   Why do you have a problem with drilling clean, smart energy, or cleaner healthy environment?
   No, you want to type up a bunch of low-cost, fake numbers that don't include clean-up of the toxins left behind.
   
   Why don't you include the total cost of nukes, waste storage, and enrichment?
   Because you can't! It would make clean energy cheap by comparison.
   
   The kids have a saying about talking....I'm sure you've heard it.
   You can poison something to the point that it can't never recover.
   What kind of a person thinks like that?
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Bops 07:24 PM 3/16/12

   The e-mail are just talk. No water data is included.
   Where's the water tests reports?
   
   I know for a fact that small changes that can make a fish tank stink rotten eggs. Duckweed will help clean the water only if you have enough (in my case) Goldfish to eat it. Other wise it will over grow the tank and kill the fish. Duckweed loves dirty water.
   We lost power for 5 days in New England after an October snow storm,
   I tried duckweed to help the water, lucky for me my fish ate most of it. My friend feeds her chickens dried Duckweed form her pond and they all enjoy it. I sure if it's controlled, it can be put to good use. There's interesting studies on it. Duckweed does not like salt! So, it's not salt.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this