NEWFIELDS - ENVIRONMENTAL FORENSICS PRACTICE, LLC 300 Ledgewood Place, Suite 305, Rockland, MA 02370
Tel: (781) 681-5040 Fax: (781) 681-5048
March 7, 2012
Mary Curliss Patton, P.E.
Director of Regulatory - Northern Marcellus Shale Division
Range Resources - Appalachia, LLC
100 Throckmorton, Suite 1200
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Re: Groundwater Well Gas Results
Range Resources - Appalachia, LLC
Harman, Lewis Unit 1H Area
Dear Ms. Patton,
NewFields Companies, LLC is pleased to provide you with the results of our recent investigation of gas
found in 22 groundwater samples collected from 21 residential wells in Hughesville (Lycoming Co.),
Pennsylvania (Table 1). The nature and source of any gas in the groundwater from these wells is of
concern to Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. The surface location of Range’s Harman, Lewis Unit 1H gas production well that produces
natural (shale) gas from the mid-Devonian Marcellus Shale is less than 4000 from the wells (Figure 1).
The data collected are tabulated and explained in detail below, but it is important to note at the outset that
the results show that the hydrocarbon gas in the groundwater from the residential wells is isotopically and
compositionally distinct from the gas produced from Range’s Harman, Lewis Unit 1H gas production
well. Thus, the available data show that Range’s Harman, Lewis Unit 1H gas production well is not the
source of dissolved gas in any of the 21 water wells studied.
In order to reach this conclusion, dissolved hydrocarbon gas in the 22 groundwater samples was
compared to three gas samples from the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well. A synthesis of the data collected
herein allowed for the following conclusions:
(1) Groundwater from the residential wells contains widely varying concentrations of dissolved
methane (CH4; 170 to 0.00013 mg/L). Effervescent conditions were present in four of 21
groundwater wells (viz., Tironie, Bodle, Crawley, and Feiler 3).
(2) Eight residential well samples (Crawley duplicates, Tironie, Feiler 3, Bodle, H. Harman,
Hachenberg, and May) contained sufficient dissolved hydrocarbons for compositional and CH4
isotopic analysis, thereby allowing for their comparison to the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well
gases. None of the wells contained CH4 of other hydrocarbons consistent with the Harman,
Lewis Unit 1H well gases. Specifically,
o Dissolved hydrocarbons in groundwater from all eight samples are compositionally
distinct from (i.e., drier than) the HC gas in the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well.
o Dissolved CH4 in groundwater from the Crawley, Tironie, Feiler 3, and Bodle wells are
derived from a thermogenic source that is distinct from (i.e., isotopically-lighter than) the
CH4 in the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases.
o Dissolved CH4 in groundwater from the H. Harman and Hachenberg wells, and the later
sample collected from the Tom Crawley well, appears to be derived from the same
2
thermogenic source as is present in the Tironie, Feiler 3, and Bodle wells, and in the
earlier Tom Crawley well sample, but the CH4 has been bacterially-oxidized to various
degrees.
o Dissolved CH4 in groundwater from the May well appears to be a different (isotopically-
lighter and drier) source of thermogenic gas than is present in the other groundwater
samples, or in the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gas.
Therefore, as indicated above,
(3) the available data show that the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gas is not the source of dissolved
gas in the groundwater samples studied.
Samples and Methods
Groundwater samples (22) were collected from the target residential wells by personnel from Civil and
Environmental Consultants, Inc. between January 30 and February 10, 2012 (Table 1). The groundwater
samples were collected using IsoBags® (4 samples) or in dissolved gas (DG) bottles (18 samples).
IsoBags were used in samples exhibiting outgassing and DG bottles were used in samples where no
outgassing was evident (M. Orzechowski, personal communication, 2012). For the DG bottle samples, a
1-L plastic sample bottle was submerged in a 5-gallon bucket of water from the well and purged with ~2
liters of water. The submerged bottle was then inverted so as to accumulate any exsolved gases in a
headspace (which was not observed), capped underwater, and shipped up-side-down. A biocide was
present in the DG bottle caps and IsoBags to prevent microbial activity between the collection and
analysis of the samples. The samples were kept cold and secure before shipping to IsoTech Laboratories,
Inc. (Champaign, IL). A copy of the chain-of-custody documents are attached to this letter. At the
laboratory, gas from the groundwater samples were extracted using a helium headspace equilibrium
method.
Natural gases from the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well were collected using IsoTubes® or Cali-5-Bond Bag
on February 7, 2012. Samples were collected directly from the production stream (referred to in the
attached Tables as “Harman 1H”), from the annulus between the 5 1/2ý and 9 5/8ý casings (referred to in
the attached Tables as “Harman 1H 9 5/8ý”), and from the annulus between the 9 5/8ý and 13 3/8ý casings
(referred to in the attached Tables as “Harman 1H 13 3/8ý”; M. Orzechowski, personal communication,
2012). These samples were shipped to IsoTech Laboratories where they arrived safely on Feb. 15, 2012.
A copy of the chain-of-custody is attached to this letter.
The groundwater gases and Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases were analyzed at IsoTech Laboratories
via: (1) compositional analysis and (2) stable isotope analysis of methane as described below.
(1) Compositional analysis was determined using a custom-configured Carle gas
chromatographic (GC) system that was optimized for natural gas samples. Multiple
columns with both thermal conductivity (TCD) and flame ionization (FID) detectors
were used to analyze fixed gases and to hydrocarbons based on ASTM D1945.1
Molecular results are reported in mole percentages (mol %) and were corrected for
helium added to create headspace in the groundwater samples. The detection limit
for individual constituents is 0.0001% (1 ppm). Precision is monitored through the
analysis of calibration gases and is conservatively considered to be ± 2% of the
measured values.
1 Am. Soc. Testing and Materials (2003) Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas
Chromatography, ASTM D1945-03, West Conshohocken, PA
3
The heat value (BTU) and specific gravity of each gas sample was calculated from
the molecular results using ASTM D3588.2
(2) Stable carbon and hydrogen isotope analysis on the methane (CH4) was performed
using an off-line preparation system and dual inlet mass spectrometer (MS). A
customized Gow Mac gas chromatograph (GC) is interfaced with a vacuum/
combustion system to separate the CH4 from the other components, then combust the
CH4 into carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. The resultant CO2 and water are purified
on the vacuum system and then sealed into Pyrex tubes for isotopic analysis. The
CO2 is analyzed directly on a dual inlet Thermo Finnigan Delta S or Delta+ XL MS.
The water is reacted with zinc turnings and converted to hydrogen gas (H2), which is
then analyzed on either the Delta S or Delta+ XL MS.
Stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic results are reported in (long-established)
standard units known as 13C and D parts per thousand (o/oo), respectively.3 The
more positive these values, the greater proportion of “heavy” isotopes (13C or 2H) the
CH4 contains. The precision for carbon isotope data is ± 0.1‰, and for hydrogen
isotope data is ± 2‰.
Guidelines for Interpretation
Understanding the implications of the molecular and isotopic data collected requires a basic
understanding of natural gas formation, which briefly is described in this section.
Two types of natural gas form in nature. These are:
Thermogenic gas, which forms by geologic processes such as the thermal breakdown of ancient
organic matter in petroleum sources rocks or coals or by the cracking of oil into gas over geologic
time, both processes occur at significant depth (i.e., high temperatures), and
Biogenic gas, which forms by the biological activity of anaerobic (methanogenic) bacteria, which
convert CO2 or acetate to methane under near-surface conditions (i.e., low temperatures).4
Biogenic gases can be sub-divided into biogenic gas formed via “CO2 reduction” and “acetate
fermentation”, depending upon the particular microbiological process at work.5 Biogenic gas formed via
CO2 reduction is most common in deep sea sediments or within glacial drift. Biogenic gas formed via
fermentation is typically formed in near-surface environments such as landfills, swamps, and marshes.
A vast body of geochemical literature has shown that the chemical composition of natural gas and the
isotopic composition of its methane (and other hydrocarbons) vary depending upon how the methane was
formed.6, 7
2
Am. Soc. Testing and Materials (2003) Standard Practice for Calculating Heat Value, Compressibility Factor, and
Relative Density of Gaseous Fuels, ASTM D3588-03, West Conshohocken, PA3 R=13C/12C or 2H/1H; 13C and D = (Rsample/Rstandard – 1) x 1000. 4 Scholl, M. (1988) Multiple origins of methane in the earth. Chem. Geol. 71: 1-10.5 Whiticar et al. (1986) Biogenic methane formation in marine and freshwater environments: C02 reduction and
acetate fermentation – isotopic evidence. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 50: 693-709.6 For example, see Galimov, E.M. (2006) Isotope organic geochemistry. Org. Geochem. 37: 1200-1262 and refs.
therein.7 Coleman et al. (1995) Isotopic identification of methane. Environ. Geoscience, 2: 95-103. It is important to note
the fields depicted in Figure 3 are not exact or all inclusive but are intended to reflect the differences of most gases
studied.
4
Results from this Study
The results from IsoTech Laboratories were provided to me on various dates in the form of the attached
data sheets. These results are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Concentration of Methane in Groundwater
The concentrations of dissolved methane (CH4) in the ground water samples collected are given in Table
2. The concentrations ranged from 170 to 0.00013 mg/L. As might have been expected given that
IsoBags only were used when outgassing was observed, there was an obvious relationship between the
concentration of dissolved CH4 and the method of sampling (Table 2). Those samples collected using the
IsoBags yielded much higher concentrations of CH4 (75 to 170 mg/L) than samples collected using DG
bottles (0.00013 to 21 mg/L; Table 2). Thus, the measured CH4 concentrations and observations during
sampling are consistent in that only the four IsoBag samples contained dissolved CH4 above the normal
surface (temperature and pressure) saturation concentration (~28 mg/L). All samples collected in the DG
bottles were below the saturation concentration (<21 mg/L).
The cause for the variable dissolved CH4 concentrations among the samples is uncertain but could be due
to the pump/use rate of the various wells, local geologic features (e.g., fractures or faults), or topography
(i.e., elevation). These factors were not analyzed as part of this investigation. Regardless, there was
sufficient gas present in all of the samples to determine the chemical composition of the gases present,
which is described in the next section. There was insufficient CH4 present to attempt stable isotopic
analysis in all but four of the DG bottle samples, which are described later in this report.
Chemical Composition of the Gases
The chemical compositions of the groundwater gases and Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases studied
included both non-hydrocarbon (non-HC) and numerous hydrocarbon (HC) gases (Table 3). The non-
HC gases in each groundwater sample were dominated by nitrogen (N2) with lesser amounts of oxygen
(O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Inspection of the groundwater gases’ compositions reveals (as above)
that those collected using the DG bottles contained less total HC than those collected using IsoBags.
Total HC concentrations for the four IsoBag samples ranged from 71.6% to 95.3% of the total dissolved
gas and the total HC concentrations in the 18 DG bottle samples ranged from 65.3% to 0.02% of the total
dissolved gas (Table 2). Among the 18 DG bottle samples, only four contained total HC percentages
above 0.3% (16.1% to 65.3%). The HCs in these 18 samples was comprised exclusively (100%) or
nearly exclusively (99.1%) of CH4. In total, the four IsoBag samples and four DG bottle samples
containing total HC in excess of 16.1% of the total dissolved gas provided the best basis to assess the
nature of dissolved gases in the area’s groundwater. These samples were further analyzed to determine
the stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic composition of the methane (described below).
The Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases also exhibit some compositional differences depending upon the
sample containers. Specifically, the two samples collected using IsoTubes contained fairly typical traces
of non-HC gases (0.4% to 1.1%) while the 13 3/8ý sample collected using Cali-5-Bond bag contained
23.1% non-HC (Table 3). This suggests that the 13 3/8ý sample includes an air component. Assuming
the O2 in each of these is attributable to air in the sample, all but ~3% (mol%) of the nitrogen measured
can also be attributed to air8; i.e., the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well natural gas contains some native N2.
While the presence and composition of the non-HC gases in the samples is notable, it is the composition
of the HC gases that is most relevant with respect to the source(s) of HC in the area’s groundwater. Not
surprisingly, CH4 was the dominant HC gas in all of the groundwater samples studied, comprising
between 99.1% and 100% of the HC (normalized) gas (Table 3). Also not surprisingly, CH4 is also the
8 This estimate is achieved assuming the 4.18% O2 in the 13 3/8ý sample is attributable to air, which is assumed to
contain 20.95% O2 and 78.08% N2. Thus, ~15.6% of the 18.6% N2 in the sample is attributable to air.
5
dominant HC gas in the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases, comprising between 98.6% and 98.8% of the
HC (normalized) gas (Table 3).
This difference in the percent CH4 is notable since it indicates that the HC gas in the groundwater samples
contained less C2+ gases (ethane et al.) than the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases. This difference is
illustrated in Figure 2, which plots the absolute concentrations of ethane and propane (the major C2+
gases detected) against the concentrations of CH4. As can be seen the groundwaters contain markedly
less ethane and propane (per unit methane) than the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H gases and exhibit distinct
linear trends (Fig. 2). This difference indicates that the HC gases in the area’s groundwater are
compositionally distinct (i.e., drier) from the HC gas in the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well.
Methane Isotopic Composition
As noted above, stable isotopes of methane provide a potential basis to determine its origin in the
environment.4-7 Figure 3 shows a (Coleman-type)7 cross-plot of the stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic
ratios ( 13C and D) for the methane in the samples studied herein. Included in Figure 3A are the
“genetic fields” typically associated with thermogenic gas, biogenic gas formed by CO2 reduction, and
biogenic gas formed by fermentation.7
Figure 3A shows that the methane in all but one of the studied samples fall within the range typically
associated with thermogenic gas. Thermogenic gas was anticipated to comprise the three Harman,
Lewis 1H well gases, which are presumed to consist of natural (shale) gas. The variation in D among
these three gases (-164.4 to -165.3 o/oo) was well within the precision of the analysis (± 2.0 o/oo) while the 13C ratios for CH4 in these gases (-28.02 to -29.09 o/oo) exceeded it slightly (± 0.1 o/oo; Table 3; Fig. 3B).
This indicates a small variation in 13C ratios (~ 1 o/oo) that might be expected among gases produced in
the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well.
The isotopic composition of the CH4 in the eight groundwater samples (that contained sufficient CH4 for
analysis) exhibit more variation. None of these groundwater samples plot among the three Harman,
Lewis Unit 1H gas samples, although a small cluster of six groundwater samples plots close-by (Fig. 3A).
The two remaining groundwater samples plot well removed from the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gas
samples and from the small cluster of the six groundwater samples (Fig. 3A). Thus, the methane in the
groundwater samples exhibits a greater diversity than is present in the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases.
This diversity is described in the following paragraphs.
The small cluster of six groundwater samples that plots close-by to the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases
(Fig. 3A) includes a pair of duplicate samples from the Tom Crawley well that were collected on Jan. 30
and Feb. 9, 2012 (Table 1). The earlier of these two duplicates – as well as the samples from the Bernard
Tironie, Michael Feiler 3, and Doyle Bodle wells – all exhibit 13C and D ratios within the analytical
precision of the analysis (Fig. 3B). This indicates these four groundwater samples contain CH4 from the
same source. The CH4 in the Tom Crawley, Bernard Tironie, Michael Feiler 3, and Doyle Bodle wells
is derived from a thermogenic source that is distinct from (i.e., isotopically-lighter than) the
Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases (Fig. 3B).
The remaining two samples from the small cluster, i.e., the Harland Harman and later of the two Tom
Crawley samples, exhibits heavier isotopic ratios (enriched in both 13C and D) than the other four
groundwater samples in this cluster (Fig. 3B). In turn, the Mary Hachenberg sample exhibits much
heavier isotopic ratios than any other samples studied – and plots beyond any typical thermogenic gas
(Fig. 3A). The process of bacterial oxidation of methane, which causes an enrichment in both 13C and D
in the remaining (non-oxidized) CH4, is a common phenomenon in some groundwater aquifers, and
6
would explain the much heavier isotopic ratios of the Mary Hachenberg sample. 9 In turn, the slightly
heavier isotopic ratios in the Harland Harman and later Tom Crawley samples, compared to the other
four groundwater samples in the small cluster (Fig. 3B), would also be explained by bacterial oxidation of
the CH4, albeit to a lesser degree than is evident in the Mary Hachenberg sample. Thus, the CH4 in the
Harland Harman, later Tom Crawley, and Mary Hachenberg groundwater samples appears to be
derived from the same thermogenic source as is present in the earlier Tom Crawley, Bernard
Tironie, Michael Feiler 3, and Doyle Bodle wells, but is bacterially-oxidized to various degrees. The
reason(s) why CH4 in the Mary Hachenberg sample is severely oxidized, but is only slightly oxidized in
the Harland Harman and later Tom Crawley samples, and is (apparently) unoxidized in the other samples
from the small cluster (earlier Tom Crawley, Bernard Tironie, Michael Feiler 3, and Doyle Bodle
samples) is uncertain, but could potentially be due to variable aquifer conditions or well use/pump rates.
One might consider if the CH4 in the Harland Harman or later Tom Crawley groundwater samples could
be a mixture of the CH4 found in the other groundwater wells in the small cluster and CH4 from the
Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well (given that it plots between these in Fig. 3). However, this possibility of
mixing (in an attempt to explain the CH4 isotopic data) would be inconsistent with the compositional data.
Specifically, the Harland Harman and later Tom Crawley groundwater gas do not contain intermediate
amounts of ethane or propane (relative to methane; Fig. 1). They contain the same proportions of ethane
and propane as the other groundwater wells in the small cluster (Fig. 2). Therefore, the CH4 in the
Harland Harman and later Tom Crawley groundwater samples is better explained by a slight bacterial
oxidation of the same CH4 that exists in the other four samples that plot in the small cluster (Fig. 3B).
Finally, the isotopic composition of the dissolved CH4 in the Dorance May groundwater sample is unique
from the other groundwater samples studied (Fig. 3A). Specifically, it is isotopically-lighter than CH4 in
the other seven groundwater samples – and is also much lighter than the three Harman, Lewis Unit 1H
well gases (Fig. 3A). Although mixing of a thermogenic gas with a biogenic gas could explain the
Dorance May sample’s unique CH4, the CH4 in the Dorance May groundwater sample appears to be a
different source of thermogenic gas than is present in the other groundwater samples, or in the
Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gas. This fact is further evident when the isotopic and compositional data
are considered together as the Dorance May dissolved gas was extremely dry (enriched in CH4; Table 3).
Figure 4 shows a (Bernard type)10 cross-plot of the 13C ratio and the methane-ethane (dryness) ratio
(C1/C2). The uniqueness of the Dorance May dissolved gas is evident.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please do not hesitate to call me at (781)
681-5040 X105.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Stout, Ph.D., P.G.
Sr. Consulting Geochemist
9
Bacterial consumption of CH4 can occur aerobically or anaerobically and results in the methane that is enriched in 13C and deuterium. The shift in the D ratio is approximately 8-times greater than the shift in 13C ratio when
bacterial oxidation occurs (Coleman et al., 1981; Geochim. et Comsochim. Acta 45: 1033-1037). The shift in the
Mary Hachenberg sample’s CH4, compared to the other groundwater samples in the small cluster, follows this ~8-
to-1 trend. Thus, the CH4 in the Mary Hachenberg groundwater sample would be consistent with a bacterially-
oxidized equivalent of the other groundwater samples within the small cluster (Fig. 3). 10
Bernard et al. (1978) Light hydrocarbons in recent Texas continental shelf and slope sediments. J. Geophys. Res.
83: 4053-4061.
7
Attachments
Chain-of-custody documents
IsoTech Laboratory Reports
S.A. Stout – Short Resume
8
Table 1: Inventory of samples studied herein.
Sample Well # Latitude Longitude Sample Sample Isotech Sample
Name per Figure 1 (N) (W) Date Time Lab No. Container
Groundwater Samples
Tironie, Bernard-Water Well-01 1* 41° 14' 35.70" 76° 40' 49.80" 2711.45' 1/30/2012 15:05 235242 IsoBag
Bodle, Doyle-Water Well-02 2 41° 14' 32.41'' 76° 40' 39.68'' 1879.37' 1/30/2012 16:05 235243 IsoBag
Crawley, Tom-Water Well-03 3 41° 14' 35.70" 76° 40' 49.80" 2711.45' 1/30/2012 17:35 235244 DG Bottle
Harman Lewis 1 4 41° 14' 15.77'' 76° 39' 57.36'' 1787.99' 2/7/2012 10:00 235919 DG Bottle
Harman Lewis 2 5 41° 14' 15.42'' 76° 39' 56.74'' 1845.09' 2/7/2012 10:45 235920 DG Bottle
Harman David 6 41° 14' 11.93'' 76° 40' 28.81'' 1268.03' 2/7/2012 12:30 235921 DG Bottle
Harman Harland 7 41° 14' 37.96'' 76° 40' 20.96'' 1588.67' 2/7/2012 13:30 235922 DG Bottle
Marquardt Arthur 8** 41° 14' 29.70'' 76° 40' 08.75'' 1104.83' 2/7/2012 14:45 235923 DG Bottle
Hachenberg Mary 9 41° 14' 32.00'' 76° 40' 32.68'' 1434.29' 2/7/2012 16:00 235924 DG Bottle
Newhard Dawn 10 41° 14' 34.19'' 76° 40' 11.58'' 1350.48' 2/7/2012 17:55 235925 DG Bottle
Mcavoy Eugene 11 41° 14' 41.18'' 76° 40' 09.56'' 2062.41' 2/8/2012 9:25 235926 DG Bottle
Zimmerman William 12 41° 14' 41.95'' 76° 40' 01.09'' 2435.06' 2/8/2012 10:35 236007 DG Bottle
May Dorance 13 41° 14' 18.92'' 76° 39' 47.44'' 2447.31' 2/8/2012 11:30 236008 DG Bottle
Moore Gary 14 41° 14' 07.19'' 76° 40' 03.28'' 1940.85' 2/8/2012 12:30 236009 DG Bottle
Neuhard Charles 15 41° 14' 23.89'' 76° 39' 59.45'' 1518.30' 2/8/2012 13:40 236010 DG Bottle
Opp Charles 16 41° 14' 07.61'' 76° 40' 36.06'' 1956.11' 2/8/2012 15:25 236011 DG Bottle
Tom Crawley 3 (duplicate) 41° 14' 35.70" 76° 40' 49.80" 2711.45' 2/9/2012 7:00 236012 IsoBag
Fetzer Kenneth 17 41° 14' 38.46'' 76° 40' 12.82'' 1722.06' 2/9/2012 9:30 236013 DG Bottle
Feiler Michael 1 18 41° 14' 38.90'' 76° 40' 15.05'' 1725.30' 2/10/2012 9:05 236679 DG Bottle
Feiler Michael 3 19 41° 14' 38.90'' 76° 40' 15.05'' 1725.30' 2/10/2012 9:40 236680 IsoBag
Snell Harry 20 41° 14' 32.37'' 76° 40' 12.88'' 1142.11' 2/10/2012 11:20 236681 DG Bottle
Kline George 21 41° 14' 29.55'' 76° 40' 02.56'' 1474.90' 2/10/2012 12:05 236682 DG Bottle
Harmon 1H Gas Samples
Harman 1H 2/7/2012 9:00 236692 IsoTube
Harman 1H - 9 5/8" 2/7/2012 9:00 236693 IsoTube
Harman 1H - 13 3/8" 2/7/2012 9:00 236433 Cali-5-Bond Bag
* property owned by G. and P. Zeisloft
** presently owned by P. Lingelfelter
Distance
from
Harman 1H
9
Table 2: Concentrations of dissolved methane (CH4; mg/L) in groundwater samples studied herein.
(na-not analyzed).
Sample Well # Isotech Dissolved CH4 Sample
Name per Figure 1 Lab No. mg/L Container
Groundwater Samples
Tironie, Bernard-Water Well-01 1 235242 75 IsoBag
Bodle, Doyle-Water Well-02 2 235243 81 IsoBag
Crawley, Tom-Water Well-03 3 235244 na DG Bottle
Harman Lewis 1 4 235919 0.00051 DG Bottle
Harman Lewis 2 5 235920 0.00056 DG Bottle
Harman David 6 235921 0.00044 DG Bottle
Harman Harland 7 235922 21 DG Bottle
Marquardt Arthur 8 235923 0.0015 DG Bottle
Hachenberg Mary 9 235924 2.7 DG Bottle
Newhard Dawn 10 235925 0.0071 DG Bottle
Mcavoy Eugene 11 235926 0.00026 DG Bottle
Zimmerman William 12 236007 0.0065 DG Bottle
May Dorance 13 236008 4.2 DG Bottle
Moore Gary 14 236009 0.011 DG Bottle
Neuhard Charles 15 236010 0.00035 DG Bottle
Opp Charles 16 236011 0.00013 DG Bottle
Tom Crawley 3 (duplicate) 236012 120 IsoBag
Fetzer Kenneth 17 236013 0.020 DG Bottle
Feiler Michael 1 18 236679 0.11 DG Bottle
Feiler Michael 3 19 236680 170 IsoBag
Snell Harry 20 236681 0.013 DG Bottle
Kline George 21 236682 0.00046 DG Bottle
Harmon 1H Gas Samples
Harman 1H 236692 na IsoTube
Harman 1H - 9 5/8" 236693 na IsoTube
Harman 1H - 13 3/8" 236433 na Cali-5-Bond Bag
NEWFIELDS - ENVIRONMENTAL FORENSICS PRACTICE, LLC 300 Ledgewood Place, Suite 305, Rockland, MA 02370
Tel: (781) 681-5040 Fax: (781) 681-5048
Table 3: Summary of the molecular and methane isotopic compositions of groundwater gases and the Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well natural gases studied herein. Laboratory data sheets attached to this report. Compositions
reported in mole%. Isotopic ratios reported in ppt (o/oo).
Sample Well # Sample Isotech He H2 Ar O2 CO2 N2 CO Total C1 C2 C2H4 C3 C3H6 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6+ Total13
C1 DC1 C1/C2
Name per Figure 1 Container Lab No. % % % % % % % Non-HC % % % % % % % % % % HC ‰ ‰ C1 C2 C3 Ratio
Groundwater Samples
Tironie, Bernard-Water Well-01 1 IsoBag 235242 0.0094 nd 0.304 4.45 0.009 23.60 nd 28.4 71.41 0.218 nd 0.0006 0.0001 nd nd nd nd nd 71.6 -29.90 -181.4 99.7 0.30 0.00001 328
Bodle, Doyle-Water Well-02 2 IsoBag 235243 0.0060 nd 0.095 0.24 0.025 5.17 nd 5.5 94.05 0.408 nd 0.0024 0.0002 nd nd nd nd nd 94.5 -29.67 -184.8 99.6 0.43 0.00003 231
Crawley, Tom-Water Well-03 3 DG Bottle 235244 0.0040 nd 0.457 10.00 0.021 40.62 nd 51.1 48.62 0.277 nd 0.0023 nd nd nd nd nd nd 48.9 -29.47 -183.5 99.4 0.57 0.00005 176
Harman Lewis 1 4 DG Bottle 235919 na nd 1.67 1.90 2.80 93.63 nd 100 0.0032 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.003 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Harman Lewis 2 5 DG Bottle 235920 na nd 1.34 27.5 0.97 70.17 nd 100 0.0026 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.003 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Harman David 6 DG Bottle 235921 na nd 1.62 1.43 0.26 96.69 nd 100 0.0025 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.003 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Harman Harland 7 DG Bottle 235922 na nd 0.598 0.64 2.26 31.17 nd 34.7 65.07 0.264 nd 0.0012 nd nd nd nd nd nd 65.3 -29.09 -174.9 99.6 0.40 0.00002 246
Marquardt Arthur 8 DG Bottle 235923 na nd 1.58 14.2 3.20 80.99 nd 99.99 0.0080 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.01 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Hachenberg Mary 9 DG Bottle 235924 na nd 1.49 10.2 1.75 70.48 nd 83.9 16.05 0.0376 nd 0.0004 nd nd nd nd nd nd 16.1 -18.73 -97.2 99.8 0.23 0.00002 427
Newhard Dawn 10 DG Bottle 235925 na nd 1.78 1.09 0.56 96.53 nd 99.96 0.0391 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.04 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Mcavoy Eugene 11 DG Bottle 235926 na nd 1.58 19.3 3.11 76.02 nd 100 0.0015 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.002 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Zimmerman William 12 DG Bottle 236007 na nd 1.66 4.09 1.31 92.90 nd 99.96 0.0405 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.04 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
May Dorance 13 DG Bottle 236008 na nd 1.45 0.52 0.20 77.89 nd 80.1 19.94 0.0027 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 19.9 -40.65 -194.2 100.0 0.01 0.00 7385
Moore Gary 14 DG Bottle 236009 na nd 1.71 1.97 0.26 96.00 nd 99.9 0.0609 0.0004 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.1 na na 99.3 0.65 0.00 152
Neuhard Charles 15 DG Bottle 236010 na nd 1.43 4.60 8.23 85.74 nd 100 0.0016 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.002 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Opp Charles 16 DG Bottle 236011 na nd 1.67 3.21 0.32 94.80 nd 100 0.0008 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.001 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Tom Crawley 3 (duplicate) IsoBag 236012 na nd 0.060 1.27 0.03 3.31 nd 4.7 94.73 0.596 nd 0.0049 0.0002 nd nd nd nd nd 95.3 -28.62 -181.3 99.4 0.63 0.00005 159
Fetzer Kenneth 17 DG Bottle 236013 na nd 1.70 1.02 1.50 95.67 nd 99.9 0.112 0.0004 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.1 na na 99.6 0.36 0.00 280
Feiler Michael 1 18 DG Bottle 236679 na nd 1.30 23.5 1.06 73.85 nd 99.7 0.332 0.0030 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.3 na na 99.1 0.90 0.00 111
Feiler Michael 3 19 IsoBag 236680 0.0099 nd 0.115 1.22 0.01 4.61 nd 6 93.50 0.528 nd 0.0034 0.0002 nd nd nd nd nd 94 -29.80 -181.0 99.4 0.56 0.00004 177
Snell Harry 20 DG Bottle 236681 na nd 1.76 1.31 0.23 96.63 nd 99.9 0.0719 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.1 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Kline George 21 DG Bottle 236682 na nd 1.44 7.92 10.5 80.14 nd 100 0.0023 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.002 na na 100.0 0.00 0.00
Harmon 1H Gas Samples
Harman 1H IsoTube 236692 0.0249 0.0796 0.0074 0.16 0.006 0.80 nd 1.1 97.53 1.36 nd 0.0279 0.0002 0.0002 0.0007 nd nd nd 98.9 -29.09 -165.3 98.6 1.4 0.00028 72
Harman 1H - 9 5/8" IsoTube 236693 0.0259 0.0476 nd 0.020 nd 0.34 nd 0.4 98.34 1.20 nd 0.0230 0.0002 0.0003 0.0007 nd nd nd 99.6 -28.02 -164.4 98.8 1.2 0.00023 82
Harman 1H - 13 3/8" Cali-5-Bond Bag 236433 0.0222 0.0434 0.221 4.18 nd 18.62 nd 23.1 75.99 0.910 nd 0.0165 nd 0.0002 0.0004 nd nd nd 76.9 -28.92 -165.0 98.8 1.2 0.00021 84
na - not analyzed
nd - not detected
HC Normalized
NEWFIELDS - ENVIRONMENTAL FORENSICS PRACTICE, LLC 300 Ledgewood Place, Suite 305, Rockland, MA 02370
Tel: (781) 681-5040 Fax: (781) 681-5048
Figure 1: Map showing the locations of the groundwater wells sampled and the
surface location of the Harmon, Lewis Unit 1H well. Radius of circle shown is
2500 . Well numbers correspond to those in Table 1.
12
Feiler Michael 3
May DoranceHachenberg Mary
Harman Harland
Tom Crawley
Crawley, Tom-Water Well-03
Bodle, Doyle-Water Well-02
Tironie, Bernard-Water Well-01
Harman 1H - 13 3/8"
Harman 1H - 9 5/8"
Harman 1H
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Methane Concentration (%)
Ethane
Conce
ntratio
n (%)
Water Wells
Harman 1H Well
Feiler Michael 3
May DoranceHachenberg Mary Harman Harland
Tom Crawley
Crawley, Tom-Water Well-03 Bodle, Doyle-Water Well-02
Tironie, Bernard-Water Well-01
Harman 1H - 13 3/8"
Harman 1H - 9 5/8"
Harman 1H
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Methane Concentration (%)
Propan
e Conc
entrati
on (%)
Water Wells
Harman 1H Well
Figure 2: Cross-plots showing the concentrations (mol%) of (A) methane versus
ethane and (B) methane versus propane in the groundwater wells and Harman,
Lewus Unit 1H well gases. The distinct trends reflect compositional differences exist
between the water wells and Harman, Lewis Unit 1H well gases (see text). Data from
Table 3.
A
B
NEWFIELDS - ENVIRONMENTAL FORENSICS PRACTICE, LLC 300 Ledgewood Place, Suite 305, Rockland, MA 02370
Tel: (781) 681-5040 Fax: (781) 681-5048
Hachenberg Mary
May Dorance
-400.0
-350.0
-300.0
-250.0
-200.0
-150.0
-100.0
-120.0 -100.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0 -20.0
13C - CH4
D - CH
4
Harman 1H Well
Water Wells
Microbial Gas CO2 Reduction Thermogenic
Gas
Microbial Gas Fermenation
expanded
view in B
Harman 1H - 13 3/8"
Harman 1H - 9 5/8"
Harman 1H
Feiler Michael 3
Harman Harland
Tom Crawley
Crawley, Tom-Water Well-03
Bodle, Doyle-Water Well-02
Tironie, Bernard-Water Well-01
-195.0
-190.0
-185.0
-180.0
-175.0
-170.0
-165.0
-160.0
-31.0 -30.5 -30.0 -29.5 -29.0 -28.5 -28.0 -27.5 -27.0 -26.5 -26.0
13C - CH4
D - CH
4
Harman 1H Well
Water Wells
Error bars reflect
analytical precision13
C: ± 0.1 o/oo
D: ± 2.0 o/oo
Figure 3: Cross-plot of carbon and hydrogen stable isotopic composition of methane
in the samples studied herein. Genetic fields (dashed-lines) after Coleman et al.
(1995).7 (B) is an expanded view from (A). Note that the analytical precision of these
measurements as reported by IsoTech are depicted by the error bars in (B). All data from
Table 3.
A
B
14
Feiler Michael 3
May Dorance
Hachenberg Mary
Harman Harland
Tom CrawleyCrawley, Tom-Water Well-03
Bodle, Doyle-Water Well-02
Tironie, Bernard-Water Well-01
Harman 1H - 13 3/8" Harman 1H - 9 5/8"Harman 1H
10
100
1,000
10,000
-60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00
13C-CH4
C1/C2
Conce
ntration
Ratio
Water Wells
Harman 1H Well
Figure 4: Bernard-type plot of carbon stable isotopic composition of methane and
methane-ethane (C1/C2) ratio in the samples studied herein. The Dorance May
sample’s unique isotopic and compositional character is demonstrated. The remaining
water wells’ gases are highly comparable to one another (with CH4 in the Mary
Hachenberg sample being severely oxidized), and distinct from the Harman, Lewis Unit
1H well gas. All data from Table 3.
15
ATTACHMENTS
236692Lab #: 17487Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: IsoTube®
Field/Site Name: 120-191.100
Location: Lycoming, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/15/2012 Date Reported: 2/27/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide ---------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
Carbon Monoxide -----------------------------------nd
Helium ----------------------------------------0.0249
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Harman 1HSample Name: Co. Lab#:
97.53
Ethane ----------------------------------------1.36
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0279
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------0.0002
N-butane ----------------------------------------0.0007
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 1014
Specific gravity, calculated: 0.565
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------0.0796
Argon ----------------------------------------0.0074
Oxygen ---------------------------- 0.16
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------0.80
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.006
-29.09 -165.3Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ15N
Propylene ----------------------------------------0.0002
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588.Chemical compositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236693Lab #: 17487Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: IsoTube®
Field/Site Name: 120-191.100
Location: Lycoming, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/15/2012 Date Reported: 2/27/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide ---------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
Carbon Monoxide -----------------------------------nd
Helium ----------------------------------------0.0259
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Harman 1H - 9 5/8"Sample Name: Co. Lab#:
98.34
Ethane ----------------------------------------1.20
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0230
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------0.0003
N-butane ----------------------------------------0.0007
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 1019
Specific gravity, calculated: 0.561
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------0.0476
Argon ----------------------------------------nd
Oxygen ---------------------------- 0.020
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------0.34
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------nd
-28.02 -164.4Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ15N
Propylene ----------------------------------------0.0002
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588.Chemical compositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235242Lab #: 17385Job #:
1/30/2012
Container: IsoBag
Field/Site Name: Lycoming County Water Assessments
Location:
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/02/2012 Date Reported: 2/06/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------0.0094
Date Sampled:
Company: Range Resources
Tironie, Bernard-Water Well-01Sample Name/Number:
71.41
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.218
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0006
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 727 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.680
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------0.304
Oxygen ---------------------------- 4.45
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------23.60
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.009
-29.90 -181.4Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Concentration of methane in water = 110 cc/L ; 75 ppm
Propylene ----------------------------------------0.0001
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235243Lab #: 17385Job #:
1/30/2012
Container: IsoBag
Field/Site Name: Lycoming County Water Assessments
Location:
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/02/2012 Date Reported: 2/06/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------0.0060
Date Sampled:
Company: Range Resources
Bodle, Doyle-Water Well-02Sample Name/Number:
94.05
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.408
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0024
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 961 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.580
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------0.0948
Oxygen ---------------------------- 0.24
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------5.17
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.025
-29.67 -184.8Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Concentration of methane in water = 120 cc/L ; 81 ppm
Propylene ----------------------------------------0.0002
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235244Lab #: 17385Job #:
1/30/2012
Container: 1 Liter Plastic Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lycoming County Water Assessments
Location:
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/02/2012 Date Reported: 2/06/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------0.0040
Date Sampled:
Company: Range Resources
Crawley, Tom-Water Well-03Sample Name/Number:
48.62
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.277
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0023
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 498 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.782
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------0.457
Oxygen ---------------------------- 10.00
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------40.62
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.021
-29.47 -183.5Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235919Lab #: 17450Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/09/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Harman Lewis 1Sample Name/Number:
0.0032
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.992
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.67
Oxygen ---------------------------- 1.90
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------93.63
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------2.80
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.75Concentration of methane in water = 0.00077 cc/L ; 0.00051 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235920Lab #: 17450Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/09/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Harman Lewis 2Sample Name/Number:
0.0026
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 1.016
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.34
Oxygen ---------------------------- 27.52
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------70.17
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.97
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.69Concentration of methane in water = 0.00084 cc/L ; 0.00056 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235921Lab #: 17450Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/09/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Harman DavidSample Name/Number:
0.0025
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.977
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.62
Oxygen ---------------------------- 1.43
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------96.69
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.26
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.69Concentration of methane in water = 0.00066 cc/L ; 0.00044 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235922Lab #: 17450Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/09/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Harman HarlandSample Name/Number:
65.07
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.264
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0012
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 664 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.714
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------0.598
Oxygen ---------------------------- 0.64
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------31.17
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------2.26
-29.09 -174.9Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.60Concentration of methane in water = 32 cc/L ; 21 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.**Methane isotope data added on 2/29/2012
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235923Lab #: 17450Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/09/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Marquardt ArthurSample Name/Number:
0.0080
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 1.011
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.58
Oxygen ---------------------------- 14.22
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------80.99
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------3.20
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.73Concentration of methane in water = 0.0023 cc/L ; 0.0015 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235924Lab #: 17450Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/09/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Hachenberg MarySample Name/Number:
16.05
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.0376
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0004
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 163 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.931
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.49
Oxygen ---------------------------- 10.19
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------70.48
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------1.75
-18.73 -97.2Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.75Concentration of methane in water = 4.0 cc/L ; 2.7 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.**Methane isotope data added on 2/29/2012
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235925Lab #: 17450Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/09/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Newhard DawnSample Name/Number:
0.0391
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.979
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.78
Oxygen ---------------------------- 1.09
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------96.53
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.56
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.73Concentration of methane in water = 0.011 cc/L ; 0.0071 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
235926Lab #: 17450Job #:
2/08/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/09/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Mcavoy EugeneSample Name/Number:
0.0015
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 1.017
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.58
Oxygen ---------------------------- 19.29
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------76.02
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------3.11
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.74Concentration of methane in water = 0.00039 cc/L ; 0.00026 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236007Lab #: 17459Job #:
2/08/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/10/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Zimmerman WilliamSample Name/Number:
0.0405
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.987
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.66
Oxygen ---------------------------- 4.09
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------92.90
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------1.31
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.76Concentration of methane in water = 0.0099 cc/L ; 0.0065 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236008Lab #: 17459Job #:
2/08/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/10/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
May DoranceSample Name/Number:
19.94
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.0027
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 202 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.893
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.45
Oxygen ---------------------------- 0.52
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------77.89
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.20
-40.65 -194.2Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.70Concentration of methane in water = 6.3 cc/L ; 4.2 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.** Methane isotope data added on 2/29/2012
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236009Lab #: 17459Job #:
2/08/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/10/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Moore GarySample Name/Number:
0.0609
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 1 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.978
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.71
Oxygen ---------------------------- 1.97
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------96.00
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.26
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.72Concentration of methane in water = 0.016 cc/L ; 0.011 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236010Lab #: 17459Job #:
2/08/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/10/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Neuhard CharlesSample Name/Number:
0.0016
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 1.025
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.43
Oxygen ---------------------------- 4.60
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------85.74
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------8.23
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.68Concentration of methane in water = 0.00052 cc/L ; 0.00035 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236011Lab #: 17459Job #:
2/08/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/10/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Opp CharlesSample Name/Number:
0.0008
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.980
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.67
Oxygen ---------------------------- 3.21
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------94.80
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.32
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.74Concentration of methane in water = 0.00020 cc/L ; 0.00013 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236012Lab #: 17459Job #:
2/09/2012
Container: IsoBag
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/10/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Tom CrawleySample Name/Number:
94.73
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.596
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0049
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 971 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.578
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------0.0603
Oxygen ---------------------------- 1.27
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------3.31
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.033
-28.62 -181.3Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.00Concentration of methane in water = 180 cc/L ; 120 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.** Methane isotope data added on 3/5/2012
Propylene ----------------------------------------0.0002
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236013Lab #: 17459Job #:
2/09/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/10/2012 Date Reported: 2/16/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Fetzer KennethSample Name/Number:
0.112
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 1 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.983
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.70
Oxygen ---------------------------- 1.02
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------95.67
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------1.50
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.72Concentration of methane in water = 0.031 cc/L ; 0.020 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236433Lab #: 17471Job #:
2/07/2012
Container: Cali-5-Bond Bag
Field/Site Name: 120-191.100
Location: Lycoming Co., PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/14/2012 Date Reported: 2/27/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide ---------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
Carbon Monoxide -----------------------------------nd
Helium ----------------------------------------0.0222
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Harman 1H - 13 3/8"Sample Name: Co. Lab#:
75.99
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.910
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0165
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------0.0002
N-butane ----------------------------------------0.0004
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 787
Specific gravity, calculated: 0.660
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------0.0434
Argon ----------------------------------------0.221
Oxygen ---------------------------- 4.18
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------18.62
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------nd
-28.92 -165.0Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ15N
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588.Chemical compositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236679Lab #: 17483Job #:
2/10/2012
Container: IsoBag
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/15/2012 Date Reported: 2/20/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Feiler Michael 1Sample Name/Number:
0.332
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.0030
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 3 Specific gravity, calculated: 1.009
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.30
Oxygen ---------------------------- 23.46
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------73.85
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------1.06
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.67Concentration of methane in water = 0.16 cc/L ; 0.11 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236680Lab #: 17483Job #:
2/10/2012
Container: IsoBag
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/15/2012 Date Reported: 2/20/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------0.0099
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Feiler Michael 3Sample Name/Number:
93.50
Ethane ----------------------------------------0.528
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------0.0034
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 957 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.583
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------0.115
Oxygen ---------------------------- 1.22
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------4.61
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.009
-29.80 -181.0Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Concentration of methane in water = 250 cc/L ; 170 ppm*Methane isotope data added on 2/29/2012
Propylene ----------------------------------------0.0002
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236681Lab #: 17483Job #:
2/10/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/15/2012 Date Reported: 2/20/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Snell HarrySample Name/Number:
0.0719
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 1 Specific gravity, calculated: 0.977
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.76
Oxygen ---------------------------- 1.31
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------96.63
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------0.23
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.73Concentration of methane in water = 0.020 cc/L ; 0.013 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
236682Lab #: 17483Job #:
2/10/2012
Container: Dissolved Gas Bottle
Field/Site Name: Lewis Harman Unit
Location: Hughesville, PA
Formation/Depth:
Sampling Point:
Date Received: 2/15/2012 Date Reported: 2/20/2012
naHydrogen Sulfide -----------------
Component Chemical
mol. % ‰ ‰ ‰
ndCarbon Monoxide -----------------------------------
Helium ----------------------------------------na
Date Sampled:
Company: Civil & Environmental Consultants
Kline GeorgeSample Name/Number:
0.0023
Ethane ----------------------------------------nd
Ethylene ----------------------------------------nd
Propane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-butane ----------------------------------------nd
N-butane ----------------------------------------nd
Iso-pentane ---------------------------------------nd
N-pentane ----------------------------------------nd
Hexanes + ----------------------------------------nd
Total BTU/cu.ft. dry @ 60deg F & 14.7psia, calculated: 0 Specific gravity, calculated: 1.042
Hydrogen ----------------------------------------nd
Argon ----------------------------------------1.44
Oxygen ---------------------------- 7.92
Nitrogen ----------------------------------------80.14
Carbon Dioxide ------------------------------------10.50
Methane ----------------------------------------
δ13C δD δ18O
Remarks:Analysis is of gas extracted from water by headspace equilibration. Analysis has been corrected for heliumadded to create headspace. Helium dilution factor = 0.69Concentration of methane in water = 0.00070 cc/L ; 0.00046 ppm*Addition of helium negates the ability to detect native helium and may negate the ability to detect hydrogen.
Propylene ----------------------------------------nd
nd = not detected. na = not analyzed. Isotopic composition of hydrogen is relative to VSMOW. Isotopiccomposition of carbon is relative to VPDB. Isotopic composition of oxygen is relative to VSMOW, except forcarbon dioxide which is relative to VPDB. Calculations for BTU and specific gravity per ASTM D3588. Chemicalcompositions are normalized to 100%. Mol. % is approximately equal to vol. %.
1
SCOTT A. STOUT, Ph.D., P.G. Senior Geochemist
Environmental Forensics Practice
EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
Dr. Scott Stout is an organic geochemist with 23 years of petroleum and coal industry
experience. He has extensive knowledge of the chemical compositions of crude oil- coal-,
natural gas-, gasoline-, diesel- and other fuel-derived sources of contamination in terrestrial and
aquatic environments. This knowledge base is supplemented by an understanding of
“background” in urban environments, coal carbonization and combustion processes, oil and gas
exploration, production, and refining, fuel handling and storage operations, regulatory history of
refined products (e.g., gasoline), surficial geology and sedimentology, and the influences of
environmental weathering on the chemical composition of contaminants. Dr. Stout has written
interpretive reports on more than 475 environmental site or incident investigations and has
authored or co-authored over 120 papers published in scientific journals and books. He has co-
edited a textbook by international contributors on the environmental forensics aspects of oil
spills. Since May 2010 he has provided expert consulting surrounding NOAA’s NRDA
investigation of the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon spill.
His research has provided a basis for property management decisions and environmental liability
allocation through the assessment of the source(s) of contamination and background conditions
in surface water, groundwater, soil, and sediments for the U.S. Depts. of Justice, Commerce, and
Defense and for the oil & gas, utility, railroad, wood treatment, maritime shipping, port
operations, and forest products industries.
Dr. Stout’s knowledge and experience has been utilized in litigious matters involving
determination of the specific nature, source(s), age, and extent of contamination. He has
provided expert consulting to counsel in more than 60 criminal and civil actions requiring
environmental forensics and expert testimony in 18 State, Federal, and Australian courts since
2000.
PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS:
Senior Consulting Geochemist, Founding Partner, NewFields Environmental Forensics Practice,
LLC, Rockland, MA. 2004-present. Application of geochemical principles in assessment
of environmental liability.
Geochemistry Research Leader, Environmental Forensics Group, Battelle Memorial Institute,
Duxbury, MA. 1997-2004. Development and application of geochemical principles in
environmental matters. Environmental Forensics Group Manager, 2002-2003.
Environmental Forensics Practice Leader, 2001-2004.
Senior Geochemist, Environmental Technology Group, UNOCAL Corp., Brea, CA, 1995-1997.
Geochemical support for company-wide environmental activities.
Geochemist, GeoTechnology Group, UNOCAL Corp., Brea, CA. 1988-1995. Applied research
and geochemical support for oil & gas exploration and production activities in California,
Alaska, Thailand, and Indonesia.
SCOTT A. STOUT, PH.D., P.G.
2
Teaching Faculty, Southern Illinois University, Department of Geology, Carbondale, IL, 1987-
1988. Taught courses in historical geology, coal geology, sedimentology, and organic
geochemistry.
Guest Scientist, United States Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Summer 1987. Guest scientist
and field assistant in the collection and analysis of wetland sediments in Florida..
Research Fellow, FOM Institute of Atomic and Molecular Physics, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 1986. Conduct basic research on chemistry and structure of
macromolecular, plant-derived organic matter in wetlands and Tertiary sediments.
Graduate Research Assistant, Coal Research Section, The Pennsylvania State University, 1982-
1988. Conduct basic research on diagenesis of macromolecular, plant-derived organic
matter in wetlands and Tertiary sediments and FeS2 morphology in processed coals.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Engineering Sciences Division (Associate Member,
2000-2202; Full Member 2003-2009)
American Chemical Society, Geochemical or Environmental Divisions (1987-present)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Forensic Environmental Investigations
Technical Committee, (2005-2006)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences, Environmental Forensics Workshop
Instructor (2000-2002, 2004-2008); Environmental Background Workshop Instructor
(2009)
Bonn Agreement, Oil Spill Identification Network of Experts (OSINET), Consultant (2007-
2009).
Contaminated Soil, Sediment and Water, Co-Editor, Environmental Forensics Series, Assoc.
Environ. Health & Sci. Publ. (1998-2003)
Environmental Forensics, Co-Editor-in-Chief, (1998-1999); Associate Editor, (1999-2001);
Technical Notes Editor, (2002-2004)
European Association of Organic Geochemists (1992-1994; 2001-present)
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Oil Spill Identification, Consultant (2003-
2006)
International Society for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds (2002-2003; 2011)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (2004-present)
Nordtest, Oil Spill Identification Protocol, Revision Committee (2001-2002)
Professional Geologist, State of California, No. 6225. (1995-present)
The Society for Organic Petrology (1986-1992; Managing Counsel, 1990-1992)
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Geology, The Pennsylvania State University, 1988
M.S., Geology, The Pennsylvania State University, 1985
Geologic Field School, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1982.
B.S., Oceanography, Florida Institute of Technology, 1982