fracking don taylor

[Mornin Beef]

Makes sense CW. Same basic maturation of the cost/risk analysis im speaking about. But not all drilling is done on private land. I have no idea the ratio but I wonder how much drilling occurs on land the gas corp buys, state and fed land versus on leased land.

[vincentpa]

Vin,
Barry has supported fracking. He claims it to be a good transition towards greener energy. But that is a lie to appease the liberals. Cornell is conducting studies that show natural gas is just as dirty as coal relative to the whole process from extraction to use.

Barry's action speak louder than his words, which are meaningless after 5 years of saying one thing and doing another. The EPA is trying to regulate the fracking industry we any means possible.

[vincentpa]

The aquifers are thousands of feet ABOVE the zone where they frack. Unless there is an accident when capping the well, the aquifer will not be impacted. There is a chance there will be an accident like anything in life. The chances are very rare. The drillers are careful. Their livelihood depends on it; and it's a good livelihood too.

Ok, I can be honest about the fact that I just watched gasland 2. I know myself well enough to understand I tend to get sucked into propaganda. Heck, that Aiden K on the other site that ranted for two days about jews had me agreeing with him after about the tenth post. But Vinny, that gasland 2 interviewed a highly regarded Cornel Prof. that said 5% of wells fail instantly somewhere along the casing. That failure could be very far away from the aquifer or right below it. The documentary also corroborated with inside gas corp documents that said the thing. I'm sure they wish to solve any problem because as you say their livelihoods depend upon it. That why it is an internal topic within these businesses i'm sure. My question is why is the hell would the casing be made of concrete? Concrete seems like a terrible choice and the immediate 5% failure seems logical to me. I dont know how this gentlemen or the gas corps define failure, but I would assume it means the allowance of what is inside the core being able to escape. Beyond the initial 5% with time degradation increases almost exponentially and that was shown from a gas corp document. Im not against fracking, but that is only because im not face to face with it. They put a large wind farm on the largest island next to my house. Very fishing/waterfowl/birding area for me and I hate them too. Pretty immature I suppose.

Does failure mean rupture? Be careful of the meaning of words.

BTW, I'm quite sure the Jews are behind fracking. Where else do these s all fracking companies get the financing.

I dont know how failure is defined. I just assume it would mean the casing fails to do its job: containment.

Assumptions can be very wrong when someone is being purposefully deceptive.

[cw1074]

The majority of onshore drilling takes place on privately owned lands on land either owned by timber companies or individuals. Several years ago we spent a year and a half dealing with the bureaucratic red tape to include some acreage in a national forest in one of our units. The minerals under this forest was owned by individuals who reserved them when they were forced to sell their lands to the government. We had no intentions of setting foot on the forest land, but was going to horizontally drill under a portion of it at a depth of around 13,500 feet. Unfortunately for the mineral owners under the forest, dealing with the government became to much of a hassle and too expensive, so we redrew our unit lines and drilled just over the minimum distance allowed by law from these lands. We would have loved to have included these mineral owners in this unit, but we didn't have the time or money to waste dealing with the government. When those mineral owners called me, I had no choice but to explain the reason we couldn't develop their acreage and I suggested they take it up with their Congressmen. This was a very influential family we were dealing with and I understand that some heads finally rolled over this, but it was too late.

[Mornin Beef]

The aquifers are thousands of feet ABOVE the zone where they frack. Unless there is an accident when capping the well, the aquifer will not be impacted. There is a chance there will be an accident like anything in life. The chances are very rare. The drillers are careful. Their livelihood depends on it; and it's a good livelihood too.

Ok, I can be honest about the fact that I just watched gasland 2. I know myself well enough to understand I tend to get sucked into propaganda. Heck, that Aiden K on the other site that ranted for two days about jews had me agreeing with him after about the tenth post. But Vinny, that gasland 2 interviewed a highly regarded Cornel Prof. that said 5% of wells fail instantly somewhere along the casing. That failure could be very far away from the aquifer or right below it. The documentary also corroborated with inside gas corp documents that said the thing. I'm sure they wish to solve any problem because as you say their livelihoods depend upon it. That why it is an internal topic within these businesses i'm sure. My question is why is the hell would the casing be made of concrete? Concrete seems like a terrible choice and the immediate 5% failure seems logical to me. I dont know how this gentlemen or the gas corps define failure, but I would assume it means the allowance of what is inside the core being able to escape. Beyond the initial 5% with time degradation increases almost exponentially and that was shown from a gas corp document. Im not against fracking, but that is only because im not face to face with it. They put a large wind farm on the largest island next to my house. Very fishing/waterfowl/birding area for me and I hate them too. Pretty immature I suppose.

Does failure mean rupture? Be careful of the meaning of words.

BTW, I'm quite sure the Jews are behind fracking. Where else do these s all fracking companies get the financing.

I dont know how failure is defined. I just assume it would mean the casing fails to do its job: containment.

Assumptions can be very wrong when someone is being purposefully deceptive.

I thought that was a very fair definition for the purpose of the discussion. Especially considering the gas corp data corresponded to the cornell profs numbers.

[Mornin Beef]

Vin,
Barry has supported fracking. He claims it to be a good transition towards greener energy. But that is a lie to appease the liberals. Cornell is conducting studies that show natural gas is just as dirty as coal relative to the whole process from extraction to use.

Barry's action speak louder than his words, which are meaningless after 5 years of saying one thing and doing another. The EPA is trying to regulate the fracking industry we any means possible.

I think EPAs treatment of the coal industry versus the nat gas industry is obvious. in this court case the EPA is abusing a veto rule afforded them in emergency situations concerning the revocation of USACE clean water act 404 permits. This is unheard of. The coal company received a permit to conduct work and the EPA came in over the top a ways after work had started and ordered a cease and desist. http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/appeal ... ver-36148/

[Mornin Beef]

vin, here is a link showing favoritism towards nat gas. Barry has rolled right with it. http://www.independentwatertesting.com/ ... phole.html

[cw1074]

By the way, oil and gas companies own millions of acres of minerals, but in most cases the minerals have been severed from the surface, meaning it is a separate mineral owner from the surface owner. A non mineral owning surface owner can not deny the mineral owner the right to explore and produce their minerals, so the operator has to negotiate with the surface owner too in order to gain access on the surface of these lands. The surface owner can not turn down a reasonable offer though. This is where the problem comes in with many wells, because the surface owner is only receiving monies for damages (being trees cut for surface location, road and pipelines) while the mineral owners are seeing the big bucks from the bonus monies, rentals and royalties. These are the ones you hear complaining about drilling and fraking procedures, because they feel they were taking advantage of. It's not our fault they purchased the surface with little to no chance of ever acquiring the minerals in the future. If it was up to me though, minerals would never be able to be completely severed from the surface, but there are too many prominent families that haven't had to work for generations because great great grandpa was a smart man and bought minerals in the late 1800's up through the Great Depression and the family has lived off of all these royalties for years. There are many multimillionaires today because great great grandpa was a timber man and bought land for timber and then sold the land after the timber was cut reserving minerals.

[Mornin Beef]

The majority of onshore drilling takes place on privately owned lands on land either owned by timber companies or individuals. Several years ago we spent a year and a half dealing with the bureaucratic red tape to include some acreage in a national forest in one of our units. The minerals under this forest was owned by individuals who reserved them when they were forced to sell their lands to the government. We had no intentions of setting foot on the forest land, but was going to horizontally drill under a portion of it at a depth of around 13,500 feet. Unfortunately for the mineral owners under the forest, dealing with the government became to much of a hassle and too expensive, so we redrew our unit lines and drilled just over the minimum distance allowed by law from these lands. We would have loved to have included these mineral owners in this unit, but we didn't have the time or money to waste dealing with the government. When those mineral owners called me, I had no choice but to explain the reason we couldn't develop their acreage and I suggested they take it up with their Congressmen. This was a very influential family we were dealing with and I understand that some heads finally rolled over this, but it was too late.

Interesting and I hope heads did role. Whats the point of negotiating for mineral rights if you cant extract them. I found this that corroborates your point http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42432.pdf

However pollution of this sort when it occurs does not abide property boundaries. The public is ultimately affected when it happens and Im not saying it does much these days but thats because it occurred more often when there was less oversight.

[Mornin Beef]

By the way, oil and gas companies own millions of acres of minerals, but in most cases the minerals have been severed from the surface, meaning it is a separate mineral owner from the surface owner. A non mineral owning surface owner can not deny the mineral owner the right to explore and produce their minerals, so the operator has to negotiate with the surface owner too in order to gain access on the surface of these lands. The surface owner can not turn down a reasonable offer though. This is where the problem comes in with many wells, because the surface owner is only receiving monies for damages (being trees cut for surface location, road and pipelines) while the mineral owners are seeing the big bucks from the bonus monies, rentals and royalties. These are the ones you hear complaining about drilling and fraking procedures, because they feel they were taking advantage of. It's not our fault they purchased the surface with little to no chance of ever acquiring the minerals in the future. If it was up to me though, minerals would never be able to be completely severed from the surface, but there are too many prominent families that haven't had to work for generations because great great grandpa was a smart man and bought minerals in the late 1800's up through the Great Depression and the family has lived off of all these royalties for years. There are many multimillionaires today because great great grandpa was a timber man and bought land for timber and then sold the land after the timber was cut reserving minerals.

Now that is something I didnt realize! that makes so much sense; that would create a huge amount of whining.

[cw1074]

By the way, oil and gas companies own millions of acres of minerals, but in most cases the minerals have been severed from the surface, meaning it is a separate mineral owner from the surface owner. A non mineral owning surface owner can not deny the mineral owner the right to explore and produce their minerals, so the operator has to negotiate with the surface owner too in order to gain access on the surface of these lands. The surface owner can not turn down a reasonable offer though. This is where the problem comes in with many wells, because the surface owner is only receiving monies for damages (being trees cut for surface location, road and pipelines) while the mineral owners are seeing the big bucks from the bonus monies, rentals and royalties. These are the ones you hear complaining about drilling and fraking procedures, because they feel they were taking advantage of. It's not our fault they purchased the surface with little to no chance of ever acquiring the minerals in the future. If it was up to me though, minerals would never be able to be completely severed from the surface, but there are too many prominent families that haven't had to work for generations because great great grandpa was a smart man and bought minerals in the late 1800's up through the Great Depression and the family has lived off of all these royalties for years. There are many multimillionaires today because great great grandpa was a timber man and bought land for timber and then sold the land after the timber was cut reserving minerals.

Now that is something I didnt realize! that makes so much sense; that would create a huge amount of whining.

Not trying to hijack this thread, but one thing that I can say is that I've dealt with some good people over the years from some of these prominent families. One being Senator Charles Wilson (of Charlie Wilson's War). He was a very interesting man. He invited me over to his house to shoot the bull and to show me the RPG presented to him that shot down the Russian helicopter. Sadly, he passed away before I ever got the chance to meet him face to face. Our politics definitely differed, but he was a very interesting man that I wish I would have had the opportunity to meet. He played hardball at first, but when he realized I was honest and not trying to screw him (before I ever realized who he was), he was quick to jump on board with signing whatever I called him about. It was several years before I found out he was THE Charlie Wilson. I found out because I called him one day and was talking when someone interrupted him and told him he had another call and he told them to take a message. He then informed me that he just turned down a call from Tom Hanks because he would rather talk to me instead.

[Mornin Beef]

By the way, oil and gas companies own millions of acres of minerals, but in most cases the minerals have been severed from the surface, meaning it is a separate mineral owner from the surface owner. A non mineral owning surface owner can not deny the mineral owner the right to explore and produce their minerals, so the operator has to negotiate with the surface owner too in order to gain access on the surface of these lands. The surface owner can not turn down a reasonable offer though. This is where the problem comes in with many wells, because the surface owner is only receiving monies for damages (being trees cut for surface location, road and pipelines) while the mineral owners are seeing the big bucks from the bonus monies, rentals and royalties. These are the ones you hear complaining about drilling and fraking procedures, because they feel they were taking advantage of. It's not our fault they purchased the surface with little to no chance of ever acquiring the minerals in the future. If it was up to me though, minerals would never be able to be completely severed from the surface, but there are too many prominent families that haven't had to work for generations because great great grandpa was a smart man and bought minerals in the late 1800's up through the Great Depression and the family has lived off of all these royalties for years. There are many multimillionaires today because great great grandpa was a timber man and bought land for timber and then sold the land after the timber was cut reserving minerals.

Now that is something I didnt realize! that makes so much sense; that would create a huge amount of whining.

Not trying to hijack this thread, but one thing that I can say is that I've dealt with some good people over the years from some of these prominent families. One being Senator Charles Wilson (of Charlie Wilson's War). He was a very interesting man. He invited me over to his house to shoot the bull and to show me the RPG presented to him that shot down the Russian helicopter. Sadly, he passed away before I ever got the chance to meet him face to face. Our politics definitely differed, but he was a very interesting man that I wish I would have had the opportunity to meet. He played hardball at first, but when he realized I was honest and not trying to screw him (before I ever realized who he was), he was quick to jump on board with signing whatever I called him about. It was several years before I found out he was THE Charlie Wilson. I found out because I called him one day and was talking when someone interrupted him and told him he had another call and he told them to take a message. He then informed me that he just turned down a call from Tom Hanks because he would rather talk to me instead.

Wow. Awesome story. That's incredible.

[don taylor]

I'm all for fracking. My secretary in the Delta chapter, my best hunting buddy and about 10 other friends of mine are working in the business. We're not only rich in gas, we're rich in liberals as well. Anti frack talk only gets you so far before somebody says something about a well every couple a miles down the road and if there were problems, why haven't we heard of one locally? I'm not going to rehash it all, but pretty much everything Vincent said I agree with completely.

[Woody]

I'm all for fracking. My secretary in the Delta chapter, my best hunting buddy and about 10 other friends of mine are working in the business. We're not only rich in gas, we're rich in liberals as well. Anti frack talk only gets you so far before somebody says something about a well every couple a miles down the road and if there were problems, why haven't we heard of one locally? I'm not going to rehash it all, but pretty much everything Vincent said I agree with completely.

Jew hater

BTW, I'm quite sure the Jews are behind fracking. Where else do these s all fracking companies get the financing.