Frack You

[rouxroux]

Originally Posted by RWebb

hey - didn't know you was a yankee!

yep....about 20 minutes from both the Texas and Arkansas lines.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Flieger

I thought that was from the natural gas that they were going after. That is, if they extract the gas then no more flammable faucets.
....

If someone can light their faucet, I just wonder how long it will take for Mother Nature to "b**ch slap" us back to reality. I've been seeing the comercials on TV lately about how safe it is, so I automatically assumed they were fracking liars

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by 944Larry

Everybody get to drawing a big check, the problems will disappear. It's the American way.

How long is it going to disappear for? 100 years? 200? The problem doesn't rear its head during our rather short human lives, so thats ok? Hundreds of years from now the land is discovered to be utterly toxic, but who cares? Let the children of the future deal with it.

[lowyder993s]

Safe Fracking - YouTube

[Eric 951]

There is alot of misinformation and scare tactics out there regarding the process. The article cited in the initial post seems to focus on landowners feeling they didn't get enough $$$ for their leases. The wildflower farm lady did get a cheap deal 12.5% royalty is low, and her up-front bonus payments were as well. Chesepeake utilizing force majuere to extend leases is a BS move. There were many people around here that signed with various drillers(chesepeake, range, and atlas were the 3 big dogs, with Rice in the mix as well), they received the up-front payments but the companies balked when gas prices dropped and haven't drilled on their units yet.They are still under lease(for 5 years), but if nothing is done in that period, the leases expire and must be renewed.

The biggest factor is doing your due diligence. The drillers are relying on folks getting their royalty check and NOT understanding the accompanying statement--it is a semi-complicated spreadsheet. As an indiviual, you have to understand which each dedcution(compression, marketing, proeduction, dehydration, etc.) is, and each classification of product(NGL, West Gas and dry Gas).

The deductions are where they can really whack you out of royalty percentages. Depending upon how one's lease reads, there are certain post-production costs which the drillers are entitlied to deduct from the royalty payments. If you don't understand what is being deducted based upon the statements, you can lose $$$ which you are entitled to.
The drillers act as though they are out for everyone's best interest, but of course they are out for the $$$.
The bottom line is, do your homework, realize the drillers are in business to make money, review your docs thouroughly prior to signing especially for the following:

1. what deductions will be taken from your roylaty for post-production, transportation, and/or marketing?
2. what is your royalt percentage going to be?
3. How are you going to receive royalties on the various products taken from your land--oil, NGL, wet gas, and dry gas--each product is different, and you want ot recive payment for each type.
4. Does your lease limit or specificaly call-out what mineral seams are being drilled. The devonain seam, marcellus seam,and utica shale are all different and you shouldn't sign an all-inclusive lease if these (3) distinct areas are on your land.

[wdfifteen]

Sounds like the message is, if an oil company offers you a contract, get a lawyer. This may become a big law specialty with lame commercials on TV like the the asbestos and IRS lawyers have.
So far, the one thing that bothers me about fracking is that they won't reveal the "other chemicals" used in the process. That sounds a fishy to me.

[Eric 951]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Sounds like the message is, if an oil company offers you a contract, get a lawyer. This may become a big law specialty with lame commercials on TV like the the asbestos and IRS lawyers have.
So far, the one thing that bothers me about fracking is that they won't reveal the "other chemicals" used in the process. That sounds a fishy to me.

There are plenty of law firms around the area which are angling for the landowner/leaseholder market. It is possible to negotiate your lease without an attorney, but if you don't have any background in contracts or drilling leases(or are knowledgable about the whole process", seeking the help of a pro is encouraged.
In the rush to get land "under contract", the early gas frack leases were based upon Texas oil frack leases, using alot of the same language and even the designated acreage for what was considered a "unit". This has since changed with more gas-specific leases being written, as the land grab has somehwat subsided.

You touched on another major issue what exactly is in frack fluid?--the drillers claim it is "proprietary information", but the issue isn't the percentages of "other chemicals" used in frack fluid, they simply won't voluntarily divulge what the "other chemicals" even are. I know the EPA is pushing hard to get them to release this information. We shall see though.

[GH85Carrera]

Halliburton Executive Drinks Fracking Fluid At Conference

Some folks seem to think it's safe.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by GH85Carrera

Halliburton Executive Drinks Fracking Fluid At Conference

Some folks seem to think it's safe.

And virtually all "big tobacco" executives smoke and solemnly swear before Congress that they feel their product is perfectly safe...I'm just sayin'.

ps: I "retired" from a big T co (when my IT dept was outsourced), and consider them "less evil" than the mega-banks I worked for, so I've got a "different" perspective I'm sure. Big Energy is no different imo...

[dlockhart]

[Scott R]

Originally Posted by KC911

If someone can light their faucet, I just wonder how long it will take for Mother Nature to "b**ch slap" us back to reality. I've been seeing the comercials on TV lately about how safe it is, so I automatically assumed they were fracking liars

Thats from a scene in a movie called "Gasland" It was first debunked on our local news here in Colorado and then later in the public media. The guy had this issue before they started drilling for natural gas near him. His well went down though four coal beds that have naturally occurring biogenic methane and that was the cause of it.

But hey, that doesn't make for a good a documentary now does it?

Gasland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And from our state website if you don't like wiki's

COGIS - Complaint Reports


When the finally interviewed the two people that they filed lighting their faucets on fire in the film they fessed up to it. That along with some creative editing made it all seem related to drilling, but it was not.

[sammyg2]

Lots of folks here PRETEND to have a clue about this but it's really just something they made up in their minds to satisfy their irrational need to stay within their fantasy world.

maybe thay can explain how something that is happening MILES below the water table has anything to do with the water table.
Maybe they can explain exactly what their concerns are without making up BS fantasy crap or quoting some ridiculous tree-hugger wacko blob who had already done the making up BS for them to save them a step.
naw, that's asking too much. They'd have to learn about the process first.


Here's a clue for ya, we've been fracturing deep subsurface rock to release crude oil for nearly a century. Doing the exact same thing but for natural gas is even safer and easier.

Oh and here's the good part: Up near the bay area where we keep most of our tree-huggers, they do fracture recovery for crude right under their noses and have been for decades and the tree huggers prolly didn't even know it! Chevron has massive fields up there.

In the Kern area the US gubmint used that technique for as long as I can remember in the US naval oil recerve, which was leased off to private companies in the late 90's IIRC. They even use steam and/or boiling water to free up the oil. (google elk hills).

They do it all over. Under Long beach, off shore, under Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, San Juaquin valley, San Jose, etc.
Anywhere there's oil they use that technique.
It is nothing new, it's just something the tree huggers are trying to make SOUND new to scare people with their irrational, untrue sensationalism.

No group I can think of in modern history has been more dishonest or sleazy in ther techniques, or has rationalized whatever it takes, their ends justify any means necessary.
And the ignorant sheeple line up to jump on their bandwagon without doing any research whatsoever. They find it much easier and simpler just to jerk their knees than to actually learn enough about a subject to make an informed judgement.

[Eric 951]

[QUOTE=sammyg2;6275710]
Here's a clue for ya, we've been fracturing deep subsurface rock to release crude oil for nearly a century. Doing the exact same thing but for natural gas is even safer and easier.

QUOTE]

Alot of people around here fail to recognize this. Since this is something new IN THIS AREA-they assume that the process is also brand new. As you mention, fracking isn't new. Some of the techinques are, as they are being perfected and tweaked, but fracking itself is an old process.

Most of the environmental damage I have read about around here or seen involves illegal dumping of frack water and/or inexperienced drilling companies using the lowest cost labor not following industry practices.

Alot of oppossition here is stirred up by those that don't have any mineral rights with their land, and thus can't profit from the process.

[sammyg2]

One of the largest of the Federal properties, the Elk Hills field in California, opened for production in 1976 and became the largest (in terms of production) oil and natural gas field in the lower 48 states at one point in its history. In September 1992, the field produced its one billionth barrel of oil, becoming only the thirteenth field in the Nation's history to reach that milestone. While managed by DOE, Elk Hills generated over $17 billion in profits for the U.S. Treasury.

DOE - Fossil Energy: Naval Petroleum & Oil Shale Reserves

[RWebb]

Lots of apologists PRETEND to have a clue about this but it's really just something they made up in their minds to satisfy their irrational need to stay within their fantasy world (and make money).

maybe thay can explain how something that is happening MILES below the water table has anything to do with the water table.
1 - DISPOSAL PONDS are at the SURFACE
2 - FLUIDS MIGRATE UPWARD
3 - AND to get down miles below you GO THRU the level of the WATER TABLE

Maybe they can explain exactly why the pollution is of NO concern without making up BS fantasy crap or quoting some ridiculous oil company PR BS who had already done the making up BS for them to save them a step.
naw, that's asking too much. They'd have to learn about the process first.


Here's a clue for ya, we've been fracturing deep subsurface rock to release crude oil for nearly a century. Doing the exact same thing but for natural gas is even safer and easier.

Maybe they expalin WHY the companies involved WORKED SO HARD to get an EXEMPTION from SDWA (Safe Drinking Water Act) in 2005????


It is nothing new, it's just something the industrial interests are trying to make SOUND safe to lull people to sleep people with their irrational, untrue BS.

No group I can think of in modern history has been more dishonest or sleazy in ther techniques, than the OIL COMPANIES or has rationalized whatever it takes, their ends justify any means necessary. Well, other than the TOBACCO COMPANIES!
And the ignorant sheeple line up to jump on their bandwagon without doing any research whatsoever. They find it much easier and simpler just to jerk their knees than to actually learn enough about a subject to make an informed judgement. And sammy is one of the worst.

- So, Frack You, sammy.


now 3 points - I don't know if the toxins will last centuries or not.

I'm not sure if they are exempt from the Clean Water Act (CWA). They are exempt from SDWA.

Also, as I noted above, I think there are ways to get the gas out w/o causing a lot of pollution - of course, that will likely cost a little more. Natural gas can be useful as a transitional fuel - about the LAST thing you want to do is to burn coal to make electricity.

What we don't need is a bunch of crazed gibberish, masquerading as information. So settle down, sammy.

[Taz's Master]

[QUOTE=Eric 951;6275731]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Here's a clue for ya, we've been fracturing deep subsurface rock to release crude oil for nearly a century. Doing the exact same thing but for natural gas is even safer and easier.

QUOTE]

Alot of people around here fail to recognize this. Since this is something new IN THIS AREA-they assume that the process is also brand new. As you mention, fracking isn't new. Some of the techinques are, as they are being perfected and tweaked, but fracking itself is an old process.

Most of the environmental damage I have read about around here or seen involves illegal dumping of frack water and/or inexperienced drilling companies using the lowest cost labor not following industry practices.

Alot of oppossition here is stirred up by those that don't have any mineral rights with their land, and thus can't profit from the process.

New in your area? Where in "Steeler country" are you? They've been pumping oil out of the ground in Western Pennsylvania longer than anywhere in the world, and fracking isn't a new procedure there.

From what I've learned, the dangers are real, but they are primarily incident rather than systemic dangers. Bad casings can introduce natural gas into the water table, and frack water spills can and do happen and they poison water supplies and livestock. Although the huge water usage in the fracking procedures is a systemic concern that I'm not comfortable with.

There are real concerns about the safety of the operations, and the gas companies are intentionally deceptive in their efforts at dealing with landowners. I'm especially interested in 2 dynamics:

#1 the landowners are the leaseholders. In Western PA, when you buy property you buy surface rights, the GOM rights have been sold off, and usually don't come when you buy property. In N. Centeral, PA that hasn't been the case, most property retains the GOM rights, and the gas companies aren't dealing with people who live out of the area and simply want a return on their investment, but rather the people who live where the development is happening.

#2 much of the outcry comes from people who made big money living and working in cities (in my opinion cities are far worse for the environment than a gas or oil field), and they don't want their bucolic retirement spoiled by the economic opportunity afforded their idyllic rural community.

[944Larry]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

How long is it going to disappear for? 100 years? 200? The problem doesn't rear its head during our rather short human lives, so thats ok? Hundreds of years from now the land is discovered to be utterly toxic, but who cares? Let the children of the future deal with it.

for some strange reason I don't think it's going to be "utterly toxic" in 200 years. I'm for majority rule, we can quit drilling and go back to burning wood and coal if that's what everybody wants.

[GH85Carrera]

A coal powered 911 is gonna suck.

[RWebb]

or we could make sure the fracking companies extract the gas with minimal pollution

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by RWebb

or we could make sure the fracking companies extract the gas with minimal pollution

Are you sure that they aren't?