Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,782,175 times
Reputation: 7185
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradjl2009
I can't post a link since I watched it in a lecture but it was called Split Estate (it is a fairly recent video; they mentioned a state from 2001 to 2008). Our bio professor thought it would be a good video for extra credit since the entire development of the Shale is getting pretty serious now.
Be wary of these types of films. I haven't seen the whole thing, of course, but there is definitely an agenda being pushed here and the bias is undeniable.
Severing the mineral estate from the surface estate is really nothing new and if you purchase land subject to a total mineral reservation that is done completely at the purchaser's risk. Part of the freedom of contract that we have in the United States (which I think we all agree is a very, very good thing) is that you are free to make a bad deal and you are free to sit at the closing with people much more sophisticated than yourself.
I would appeal to you to take this film for what it is and take your professor's advice for what it's worth. You may want to ask the geology professor what he or she thinks...
Be wary of these types of films. I haven't seen the whole thing, of course, but there is definitely an agenda being pushed here and the bias is undeniable.
I would appeal to you to take this film for what it is and take your professor's advice for what it's worth. You may want to ask the geology professor what he or she thinks...
Well, perhaps, but the oil companies screwed western Colorado, as I posted in another thread on the Pgh forum. Those scenes were from that area. They mentioned Rifle (Colorado).
I don't know how many of you follow stock car racing on the Nascar circuit.
There is an announcer called Darrell Waltrip who has a very famous saying.
Short Term Gain - but a long term loss.
Anyone involved with deep mining coal will tell you that natural gas has been around almost as long as the earth. The gas has always been there and at times it even finds its way up to the surface.
Gas in coal mines was never a good thing, because the gas was odorless and colorless and tasteless. The worst time for gas explosions was in the fall around October / November when the barometer dropped down low.
I guess the pressure of the atmosphere had something to do with keeping the gas down in the earth and when the barometer dropped, the gas would rise to the surface.
So for the last 100+ years, we knew that there was natural gas in between the shale, just that there was no way to get to it and make it produce enough natural gas to be worth their while.
Now we have developed a way - directional drilling and we have found a way to break up the shale to get it to release the natural gas - fracturing.
The problem is - when you put a million gallons of acids that would eat clear through a automobile - engine block and all in about 12 hours into the ground, not everything that you pour into the ground will come right back out again. In fact - it might leach for 100 years.
There is only about a 20 year supply of natural gas in the Marcellus shale region and if you want to trade good drinking water for natural gas, well be my guest. But in fact, the people who lives in the city will hardly be affected. The people who lives in the county will be affected because they don't dip into a river with a big pipe to get their drinking water and people in the country does not always have city water available to them.
The gas removed from the ground is not going to go towards heating the local residents homes because it will be put into a pipe and moved to a place maybe 1000 miles away that does not have natural gas.
So the only people who will suffer will be the poor people living in the rural areas that had to trade a couple of dollars, if they even see any money at all in an exchange where everyone in the area might loose their drinking water.
Now is it fair for city people to tell country people that it is ok for them to come into their area and pollute their water in exchange for some short term jobs and a couple of dollars in their pockets? My answer is NO!
One point to ponder is the Dubois reservoir in Clearfield County Pennsylvania. Their watershed is protected by law and they are in the Susquehanna basin which empties into the Chesapeake bay.
At one time the city of Dubois was desperate for money and they sold their natural gas rights and gave a lease to a exploration company for the purpose of drilling Marcellus Shale Natural Gas. When the companies found out that they could not use Frac water in the well, they abandoned the project and the city did not get paid their money that was promised to them for the right of exploration.
Would you trade 1 million dollars for pure drinking water for the next 50 years for a population of 30,000 people?
That is what Sandy Township / the city of Dubois proposed to do.
The best thing that could happen would be for the gas companies to not find any gas and have to leave empty handed.
Let me put this into perspective, you cannot even legally fish in the Beaver Run Reservoir. How would you feel if they allowed natural gas companies to come in and pollute all the water in a 40 mile radius of that reservoir?
How many people would it affect today? How many people would it affect 30 years from now?
When the issue is a small matter up in the middle of the Allegheny National Forest, nobody pays it no mind. Now you move that same little problem down 60 miles and all of a sudden, everyone has a problem with it.
The water contamination issue is probably the most serious one, but it also seems to be manageable. The biggest issue is not from the underground fluids, but spills and leaks from the waste water. That is an issue that can be addressed with adequate regulation, oversight, and penalties. For example, you could require using steel tanks for waste water. That is going to add to the cost of operations, but they will remain economical at slightly higher gas prices. The secondary issue is properly casing the vertical shaft, which is already supposed to be done, but again you can address that issue with more oversight if you are finding a lot of violations. The tradeoff is basically the same: more oversight means slightly higher costs, but that just means needing slightly higher gas prices to make it economical.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,782,175 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bevis
I don't know how many of you follow stock car racing on the Nascar circuit.
There is an announcer called Darrell Waltrip who has a very famous saying.
Short Term Gain - but a long term loss.
Anyone involved with deep mining coal will tell you that natural gas has been around almost as long as the earth. The gas has always been there and at times it even finds its way up to the surface.
Gas in coal mines was never a good thing, because the gas was odorless and colorless and tasteless. The worst time for gas explosions was in the fall around October / November when the barometer dropped down low.
I guess the pressure of the atmosphere had something to do with keeping the gas down in the earth and when the barometer dropped, the gas would rise to the surface.
So for the last 100+ years, we knew that there was natural gas in between the shale, just that there was no way to get to it and make it produce enough natural gas to be worth their while.
Now we have developed a way - directional drilling and we have found a way to break up the shale to get it to release the natural gas - fracturing.
The problem is - when you put a million gallons of acids that would eat clear through a automobile - engine block and all in about 12 hours into the ground, not everything that you pour into the ground will come right back out again. In fact - it might leach for 100 years.
There is only about a 20 year supply of natural gas in the Marcellus shale region and if you want to trade good drinking water for natural gas, well be my guest. But in fact, the people who lives in the city will hardly be affected. The people who lives in the county will be affected because they don't dip into a river with a big pipe to get their drinking water and people in the country does not always have city water available to them.
The gas removed from the ground is not going to go towards heating the local residents homes because it will be put into a pipe and moved to a place maybe 1000 miles away that does not have natural gas.
So the only people who will suffer will be the poor people living in the rural areas that had to trade a couple of dollars, if they even see any money at all in an exchange where everyone in the area might loose their drinking water.
Now is it fair for city people to tell country people that it is ok for them to come into their area and pollute their water in exchange for some short term jobs and a couple of dollars in their pockets? My answer is NO!
One point to ponder is the Dubois reservoir in Clearfield County Pennsylvania. Their watershed is protected by law and they are in the Susquehanna basin which empties into the Chesapeake bay.
At one time the city of Dubois was desperate for money and they sold their natural gas rights and gave a lease to a exploration company for the purpose of drilling Marcellus Shale Natural Gas. When the companies found out that they could not use Frac water in the well, they abandoned the project and the city did not get paid their money that was promised to them for the right of exploration.
Would you trade 1 million dollars for pure drinking water for the next 50 years for a population of 30,000 people?
That is what Sandy Township / the city of Dubois proposed to do.
The best thing that could happen would be for the gas companies to not find any gas and have to leave empty handed.
Let me put this into perspective, you cannot even legally fish in the Beaver Run Reservoir. How would you feel if they allowed natural gas companies to come in and pollute all the water in a 40 mile radius of that reservoir?
How many people would it affect today? How many people would it affect 30 years from now?
When the issue is a small matter up in the middle of the Allegheny National Forest, nobody pays it no mind. Now you move that same little problem down 60 miles and all of a sudden, everyone has a problem with it.
That is my point!
I've designed or pumped thousands and thousands of shale fracs. Never pumped millions of gallons of acid into any formation **EDIT**with the exception of a series of James Limestone stimulations for Exxon around Nacogdoches, TX**EDIT** and what acid I have pumped has generally been 12.5% to 18% HCl, although sometimes 28% HCl (about as concentrated as HCl gets) is called for. You can't dissolve a car in 12 hours with it and acid "spends" as it acts on calciferous rock so even if you pump really hot acid into a well it is not really hot acid 24 hours later.
Also, there is a LOT more than 20 years worth of natural gas in the Marcellus. That reservoir is absolutely, unfathomably enormous
Out of curiousity, why do you believe that there is necessarily a trade off between natural gas production and good drinking water?
Last edited by jimboburnsy; 03-31-2010 at 07:19 AM..
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,782,175 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
The water contamination issue is probably the most serious one, but it also seems to be manageable. The biggest issue is not from the underground fluids, but spills and leaks from the waste water. That is an issue that can be addressed with adequate regulation, oversight, and penalties. For example, you could require using steel tanks for waste water. That is going to add to the cost of operations, but they will remain economical at slightly higher gas prices. The secondary issue is properly casing the vertical shaft, which is already supposed to be done, but again you can address that issue with more oversight if you are finding a lot of violations. The tradeoff is basically the same: more oversight means slightly higher costs, but that just means needing slightly higher gas prices to make it economical.
On the issue of the size of the reserve: last I knew the Marcellus estimates were still being increased more or less annually, so we really don't know where the final number will end up. Of course if in the United States we switch a lot more of our energy use to natural gas, it will mean the calculated number of years of supply will go down.
But in any event, I would definitely agree that we should learn our lessons from the steel bust and realize that at some point this play will be over, and we should plan accordingly. Plus, the Pittsburgh Gassers doesn't sound so great.
...
There is only about a 20 year supply of natural gas in the Marcellus shale region and if you want to trade good drinking water for natural gas, well
...
Statements like this are far from reality.
Look up mineral resource classification. It's a known and accepted field of study. And so it makes one question how accurate your other statements are.
On the issue of the size of the reserve: last I knew the Marcellus estimates were still being increased more or less annually, so we really don't know where the final number will end up. Of course if in the United States we switch a lot more of our energy use to natural gas, it will mean the calculated number of years of supply will go down.
But in any event, I would definitely agree that we should learn our lessons from the steel bust and realize that at some point this play will be over, and we should plan accordingly. Plus, the Pittsburgh Gassers doesn't sound so great.
That's true idk if this is a true statement but my dad said several decades ago, people said the Middle East would be out of oil by 2000 but they keep finding more over there.
Location: About 10 miles north of Pittsburgh International
2,458 posts, read 4,204,019 times
Reputation: 2374
Quoted from a number of differnt sources:
Quote:
...enough natural gas to last the entire United States for more than 20 years. ...
I think the confusion stems from Little Bevis missing the bolded part. Just because somebody taps the Marcellus gas doesn't mean we're going to shut off every other gas supply in the meantime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
