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.
They just leased 640 acres that adjoins my property..would you be for it if you were me?..no,not for it .
Water table.
If he saw the dollars paid for the lease of his acreage, he might change his mind. That money is paid whether or not they ever drill. We were offered $35,000 for our 11 acres (the lease was never finalized, as in our case, the drilling company pulled out of the area). The dollars/acre for a lease have risen since then, in the areas where the drillers are seriously interested (this they discover by 'test wells' and seismic surveys).
Also (and this should change anybody's mind) if you do not sign a lease, and the driller obtains enough land on adjoining properties, you are included anyway (forced pool), but you do not receive the same royalty percentage as those who leased their land. So, it's a mistake not to lease your land if you are made an offer. You're only hurting yourself.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 11-14-2014 at 04:48 AM..
You maybe correct, however, again viewing the tube, It appears several residents have received free water purification systems in their homes near fracking, by the oil companies. If true, why? Perhaps it's to placate the folks, perhaps not?
It's the illusion of protecting people from non existing problems.
You are overstating your case. If solar gets cheap enough the problem is likely solvable.
Anther factor of 4 in efficiency and cost would probably do it. And that is not impossible. Certainly nol in hand either...but not out of reach in a decade or two.
Fossil fuels ARE cheap enough, they produced a lot of energy immediately and fund billions of dollars of government programs.......solar, not so much.
because 3,000 ft deep oil and gas wells contaminate 100ft oil wells?
Doesn't make sense, does it, really? Some folks swallow any nonsense they hear, amazing. If fracking was such a slam dunk the entire state of North Dakota would be an utter wasteland, not a state full of cows, farms and oil wells, all side by side, farmland surrounding clusters of wells.
You have no concept of how big the country is, do you?
I have 8 wells within 10 miles of my house and 3 within 1 mile. No issues with my water and it has been tested multiple times.
My neighbor has 2 wells on his property. 1 is no more than 300 yards from his house. No water issues.
But I'm certain that some leftie bureaucrat in DC can show these nit-wits a chart proving you wrong.
They pay as much as any other truck to be on the road that does as just as much damage, on top of that here in PA they pay an additional impact fee AND have voluntarily paid out of pocket for roads. About half a billion at last count.
We will find that out later after you drink it. The important thing is to consume what you think is safe. We learn that when some VIP drinks what he says is safe for you.
And now you're making assumptions that are not scientifically accurate. Methane and destruction of habitat by fracking??? Even the EPA has not been able to prove that - as I have shown in previous posts with articles showing this. You claim that the impacts of solar and hybrid is small. Yet those are new technologies and you claim they have been definitively shown to have minimal impact??? Meanwhile fracking has been employed for over 50 years and even though people have tried, the evidence does not support the assertions you made above. Do you see the hypocrisy of your position?
Yes release of methane and carbon that has been stored for millions of years is an issue contributing to global warming. Additionally pumping, storage and disposal of millions of gallons of water that contains chemicals like Benzene and Hydrochloric Acid is an issue. Once again Fracking has never taken place at anything close to these levels. Negative impacts of hybrids and solar are almost non-existent. There are 5000 wells operating in the Bakken field that could increase to 40-50,000, I don't get the feeling there is any oversight at that level.
The Bakken fires from venting can be seen from outer space.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,048,381 times
Reputation: 3936
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
Did you read that article or even the original research? The guy from Duke is blaming faulty wells, not fracking.
I'm sorry..I had worked all day yesterday in the cold and was pretty sleepy when I posted that..apologies to all..I just glanced it.
I am not really to concerned about it because Illinois has enacted a law that the fracking industry and farmers/cattle ranchers are calling "the guilty til proven innocent" law...a breeze through explanation is this..my wells are currently clean of contaminates..if at any time they become contaminated to within two years after fracking(or maybe it was 2 1/2 yrs) or the same amount of time AFTER A WELL IS ABANDONED(OIL/NATURAL GAS),a company has to prove it came from a source other than fracking or mineral extraction..imho that is fair enough and stops all the BS that oil companies have gotten away with in most other states...that's why all of us have had our wells tested for a baseline...that keeps everything above board
If nothing happens and no contamination occurs,awesome..if it does? Awesome..this farm will be worth more than it ever has been in its entire history
Here's an article from our local paper(which has basically turned a rightwing suck up rag in the past 10 yrs or so) semi outlining it..there's a mention of the law near the end of the article.
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.