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.
I agree, I think it is hard to support opinions of folks that don't have a dog in the fight. The folks that have and will live here for the rest of their lives, may be a tad more concerned w/ hearing both sides. Getting the Big picture, rather than the short answer. There is more than money on the table. I will reserve judgment, I remember many situations that became disasters, because of the ineptitude of a few. Lets hope that this is not a repeat.
This is an issue in many states, NY, PA, Delaware, TX, Al, etc. The 2 largest lobbies in the US - #1 Financial, #2 Energy and they usually get their way.
I'm not against drilling/frac in ANY WAY, but comments like "I am convince that we have a lot of leaders in this country who are bound to destroy this country!" are hypocritical. Theoretically we are destroying our country, and also poisoning lots of water from the chemicals among other things.
On the other side though, the economy sucks, people need jobs, drilling/fracking creates jobs, and jobs stimulate the economy.
I'm not even close to being a full blown conservative, if anything I'm more liberal, but you gotta think for peoples well being. For now we need oil, and need to continue to drill until there's a long term solution for a new energy source.
the science already indicates contamination of drinking water
Can you point to where this specifically has happened, and not just a guess as to what happened. THEN after that I would like proof that is has happened in the Bakken.
If you understand the geology of the Bakken, you would understand it is basically impossible. The well and water table are thousands of feet apart.
I think somewhere in PA the oil & watertable were close together. In the Bakken, from what I've heard, the bottom of the deepest water is around 1800 feet. The drilling is at 2 miles (10,500 feet +++) down.
Yes the report could have been released as early as Nov 18,2011, but it wasn't. Keep in mind that this is just a report, the time it takes to turn a report into actual policy and regulations is years. There are 6000 wells in place and growing, by the time regualtions are put in place it will be too late.
I read through the report and it doesn't present any urgency, clean drinking water, lack of water is a huge issue in just about every state. This is a very cavalier approach to something as important as drinking water.
First, I provided a link to the final report which was completed last month. It was completed by Nov. 18th, 2011. I know it's just a report, it's the report in your previous post that you used to try and attempt to answer Corbay's question. Problem is, it didn't actually answer any of them. Also, the intention of the report is not to create policies and regulations but to set up guidelines on what local, state, and federal governments can do to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is done in a safe manner. Remember, this is the information YOU provided to try and prove your point, but unfortuantely it doesn't seem that you actually read the report you were posting about.
Second, your NY Times article is primarily addressing the problems that the eastern part of the US is having with hydraulic fracturing. As another poster already pointed out, what's going on in the eastern part of the US is very different from what's going on here in North Dakota. They are drilling natural gas shales that are closer to their water table, whereas here in North Dakota we are fracking thousands of feet below our water table. It's the same method, but it's not being done in the exact same way so they are not comparable.
Third, what Corbay and some of us are asking for is evidence that the hydraulic fracturing here in North Dakota is damaging the water table. There was a Sanjel blowout that may have affected a local aquifer, but at this point in time the results of the studies being done there haven't been released so it's unknown if that had any effect. However, the vast majority of wells are not affecting the water table. We have over 200 wells in the state and the first one that may have affected it was due to an accident and that happened recently. This means that it's not a regular occurrence. Drilling is still a dangerous process, people get hurt and sometimes bad things happens. That being said, unless you personally are willing to forsake all oil and natural gas products you're not really in a place to state that it should stop.
First, I provided a link to the final report which was completed last month. It was completed by Nov. 18th, 2011. I know it's just a report, it's the report in your previous post that you used to try and attempt to answer Corbay's question. Problem is, it didn't actually answer any of them. Also, the intention of the report is not to create policies and regulations but to set up guidelines on what local, state, and federal governments can do to ensure that hydraulic fracturing is done in a safe manner. Remember, this is the information YOU provided to try and prove your point, but unfortuantely it doesn't seem that you actually read the report you were posting about.
Second, your NY Times article is primarily addressing the problems that the eastern part of the US is having with hydraulic fracturing. As another poster already pointed out, what's going on in the eastern part of the US is very different from what's going on here in North Dakota. They are drilling natural gas shales that are closer to their water table, whereas here in North Dakota we are fracking thousands of feet below our water table. It's the same method, but it's not being done in the exact same way so they are not comparable.
Third, what Corbay and some of us are asking for is evidence that the hydraulic fracturing here in North Dakota is damaging the water table. There was a Sanjel blowout that may have affected a local aquifer, but at this point in time the results of the studies being done there haven't been released so it's unknown if that had any effect. However, the vast majority of wells are not affecting the water table. We have over 200 wells in the state and the first one that may have affected it was due to an accident and that happened recently. This means that it's not a regular occurrence. Drilling is still a dangerous process, people get hurt and sometimes bad things happens. That being said, unless you personally are willing to forsake all oil and natural gas products you're not really in a place to state that it should stop.
First, was not responding to Corbay, I was responding to Franklin Cole's sarcastic stratement.
Second, you didn't answer the question regarding the guidlines in the report, does it give you confidence that action will be taken shortly or are you just going to wait until some contaminated wells. Do you have any idea how they would clean those wells.
Third, neither NY, PA, WV, ND or the EPA has the resources to provide reasonable oversight of that many wells.
You can't believe that just because they are fracking to a depth of 10,000 ft that they are immune from pollution.
"The E.P.A.’s 1987 report does not discuss the specific pathway that the fracking fluid or gel took to get to Mr. Parsons’ water well in West Virginia or how those fluids moved from a depth of roughly 4,200 feet, where the natural gas well was fracked, to the water well, which was about 400 feet underground."
Additionally they have used some high pressure tactics, going into poor or remote areas to secure leases taht were not in the best interest of the property owners to say the least.
"So Mr. Ely said he was surprised several years later when the drilling company, Cabot Oil and Gas, informed them that rather than draining and hauling away the toxic drilling sludge stored in large waste ponds on the property, it would leave the waste, cover it with dirt and seed the area with grass. He knew that waste pond liners can leak, seeping contaminated waste."
Additionally it is an outright lie when the industry indicates there has been no contamination of water wells, there have been hundreds of lawsuits that have been settled and the judgements sealed. You ca't get access tp the details, if the industry is safe at least allow the details of the lawsuit settled lacking the awards, what have they got to hide?
What kind of oil lease rates could one expect on land located in mckenzie county. thanks
If you have to ask then you aren't ready to lease your mineral acres. Make sure you know exactly what the going rates are for your area before you even sit down with someone to negotiate. Personally I wouldn't even talk to anyone who isn't offering at least $500 an acre plus 20% royalties, but I don't own any mineral acres lol.
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.
Pictures of fracing in New York State - Catskills
