Fracking issues on your land??/

-
brewil

brewil

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
685
Reaction score
24
Location
Cape Tow, ZA
Just curious if anyone has issues with their water from hydraulic fracking.
 
I know that in different parts of Arkansas they have had problems.Might want to do some research on the subject,Kevin.
 
We've got Shell wanting to frack in one of our desert ecosystems. Seems some people in the EPA say it's toxic but the oil companies say it's fine. Sounds a bit like the cigarette companies saying that their testing showed no side effects. Would like to understand it or know if anyone has first hand experience. Has anyone not had a problem?
 
Yeah just watched Gasland, looks terrifying. goodbye water supply if they frack new New york.
 
Gotta be careful about what Josh Fox comes up with. In other words don't just rely on what he produces, do other research as well.
 
I don't live in an area where its an issue, but i wouldnt drink this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8"]Light Your Water On Fire from Gas Drilling, Fracking - YouTube[/ame]
 
We have a well and have the small air bubbles in the water but never have the bigger bubbles that pop like in the video. I was told that our bubbles are from all the basalt in the area.
 
95teetee said:
there are some farmers in this area who took their flammable well water to meetings with gas companies to show the effects the shallow drilling had done.

Nothing ever comes from it though...
Click to expand...

The "BIG MACHINE" keeps on churnin!! Money money money
 
Greed fuels it. Did some research on Mr fox but it also seems like their is
Deliberate misleading about the toxicity and pollution of the water tables. more whistleblowers have come forward. I believe that if you pump poison into the ground it's going to infect it. It's such a shame.
 
Here in Pennsylvania the drilling is being done in rural counties. People lucky to be making 50K per year are being offered hundreds of thousands to sign away their leasing rights. There is no way they'd see that kind of money doing anything legal so they sign on the dotted line. Hell, I'd probably do the same in their shoes. The politicians have all been bought with generous campaign contributions, in return they don't charge an extraction tax and open up state lands. I worry that the toxic cocktail they pump into the wells will come back to haunt us.
 
When I lived in AZ I was 1/2 mile from a water treatment facility. I had a friend living with us for awhile that worked at the Havasu pumping station. We used to place bets on the crap in the water, whether they were going to be floaters or sinkers. Could smell the chlorine they were putting in the water. Had a company come out to test the water prior to getting an RO unit........was told to stop drinking the tap water due to all the crap the city was not removing/putting in.....nobody is safe....
 
inkjunkie said:
When I lived in AZ I was 1/2 mile from a water treatment facility. I had a friend living with us for awhile that worked at the Havasu pumping station. We used to place bets on the crap in the water, whether they were going to be floaters or sinkers. Could smell the chlorine they were putting in the water. Had a company come out to test the water prior to getting an RO unit........was told to stop drinking the tap water due to all the crap the city was not removing/putting in.....nobody is safe....
Click to expand...

hmm interesting, My folks live about a mile from a treatment plant. I wonder what would happen if theyre water was tested.
 
One of the problems, a truly comprehensive, accurate water test does not come cheap. Soooo, people around here(western Pa) who have wells, have paid the el cheapo water test fee, that says, potable or not potable, but not the comprehensive test that details everything in the water, by amounts and safety levels. So, then comes someone into the area, does fracking, people end up making some money out of it, pay for the comprehensive test, and find out their water is unsafe, and viola, blame it on the fracking. It's estimates that of all the wells in Pennsylvania, over half are unfit for consumption, but the people either can't afford, or wont pay for the full test.

And, as was stated earlier, gas fracking is done at a depth of, normally, over a mile to almost 8000 feet.

FF
 
The fracking may be done at 8000 feet but the fumes coming off the condensation tanks and the wells themselves are causing people severe health issues. It jsut seems too much of a coincidence that people report the same issues when fracking has taken place near them. But, personally, I believe money talks and bugger the poor. The guys making billions are not going to stop or come forward saying it's a health hazard when the cash keeps flowing in. Just look at the ciggie companies.
A friend of mine is a lecturer of workplace psychology at a university here and told me that there is a larger percentage of sociopaths in the corporate world than any other occupational area. I'm all for capitalism but when you take advantage of people for your own ends, there's something wrong.
 
The best way to prevent it is do not sell your mineral rights.
I have been approached at least 50 times to sell for a considerable amount of money and the answer is no.
There last attempt is a threat to shut off the free gas that we have and cap the small well that is on the property for the the last 80 years.
It is all about the dollars.
 
Fstforward said:
One of the problems, a truly comprehensive, accurate water test does not come cheap. Soooo, people around here(western Pa) who have wells, have paid the el cheapo water test fee, that says, potable or not potable, but not the comprehensive test that details everything in the water, by amounts and safety levels. So, then comes someone into the area, does fracking, people end up making some money out of it, pay for the comprehensive test, and find out their water is unsafe, and viola, blame it on the fracking. It's estimates that of all the wells in Pennsylvania, over half are unfit for consumption, but the people either can't afford, or wont pay for the full test.

And, as was stated earlier, gas fracking is done at a depth of, normally, over a mile to almost 8000 feet.

FF
Click to expand...


And, I'd almost bet that a lot of those wells also had sulfur in 'em to begin with. Or heavy metals. Hard not to have to combat the chemicals that already in the water table... oh, say, for the last couple thousand years. And these are chemicals that are naturally occurring. And not exactly "safe."

Lead, mercury, sulfur, all things that really shouldn't be consumed, but as said, comes back as "potable" on a cheap test because of so many parts per million. For someone to think that the water table is pure is funny, to me. Walk into my sister's house and smell the sulfur. Taste my business partner's tap water when the water softener and the filters are turned off and I'll guarantee you that you'll spit it back out. Both on wells, neither one of them in a drilling state.

One of the interesting things about discussions such as this is that people complain only about certain aspects and don't complain about everything. Fracking bad! But then overlook certain facts like PA has added over 300,000 new jobs since drilling began or NG is relatively inexpensive compared to petroleum based products. We want the jobs! We want the revenue that comes with the jobs! We want cheap energy! Just don't drill to do it. (Not all wells have to fracked, by the way, and fracking isn't the only thing I hear the environmentalists complaining about, most around here are against drilling altogether and use fracking as just one example as to the reasons not to drill.)

Being this close to Ithaca I always like hearing some of the more, shall we say, two-faced aspects to the debate. The environmentalists there are calling for more clean energy NG burning transit buses, then at the same time are screaming that drilling can't take place. Um, then how are we going to get that "clean energy NG" for the transit buses?

Did I read on here where someone is saying that money is greasing palms and the politicians are turning the other way? I'd like to see an example, please, because all I hear about coming out of Northern PA is that special use taxes for the roads are being looked at, extra taxes specifically on drilling are being looked at, extra sales taxes on FR clothing is being looked at, etc, all taxes that are aimed at the drilling industry and the employees of such.
 
Natural gas in water occurs in areas that have never been drilled...its a natural condition. And if you worry about toxic materials being injected 8,000 to 10,000 feet down, learn about the natural toxicity that occurs at that depth.

If fracking really bothers you, get rid of your car and heat your home with wood so there is less demand for petroleum products.

Yes, I'm building a home within a quarter mile of two fracked gas wells, and I will be drilling a deep water well. It doesn't concern me for a second.
 
Rameth, I'll go out on a limb here and assume I was the one you were referring to....lol.

Just this year, PA adopted something called an impact fee to cover the wear and tear on the roads by the Gas machinery. At 2.5% it's the lowest by far of all the Marcellus producing states. For example, Texas 5.4%, WV 6%, MD 7.5%. The governor claims that if our taxes are too high the drillers will go elsewhere. Not sure how they're going to extract PA gas from NJ but according to the Gov, it's a possibility.

As far as political contributions are concerned, the attached link will answer those questions.

http://www.marcellus-shale.us/political-contributions.htm
 
pacuda59 said:
Rameth, I'll go out on a limb here and assume I was the one you were referring to....lol.

Just this year, PA adopted something called an impact fee to cover the wear and tear on the roads by the Gas machinery. At 2.5% it's the lowest by far of all the Marcellus producing states. For example, Texas 5.4%, WV 6%, MD 7.5%. The governor claims that if our taxes are too high the drillers will go elsewhere. Not sure how they're going to extract PA gas from NJ but according to the Gov, it's a possibility.

As far as political contributions are concerned, the attached link will answer those questions.

http://www.marcellus-shale.us/political-contributions.htm
Click to expand...

I didn't know if it was you I was pointing out what was said, or not, sometimes I'll look at threads and, retain information and refer back to what was posted while I have reply box open. Thanks for clearing that up.

Even then, though, you'll admit, rather the taxes are higher or lower than most states it's a tax specifically aimed at the gas industry.

Yes, some of the roads shouldn't be handling heavy truck traffic, but I think that, over time, it won't make a difference as the money earmarked for "wear and tear" on the roads won't be going to the roads at all, especially some of the more rural roads that the trucks will be using to haul in equipment. Once the valve is set, the traffic ends and the need for upgrading doesn't exist. And I don't see anyone going along before the gas drillers and doing the necessary upgrades first.

That money will used for other things inside the political/bureaucratic machine.

Even it it's applied to other roads, such as interstate or state routes, most of those roads are already designed for heavy truck traffic and the "wear and tear" will be minimum as thousands of trucks pass over them on a daily basis to begin with.

The thing of it is, though, when it comes to drilling, much like global warming, both sides have "facts" to present their arguments. Most of the time those "facts" have more to do with an agenda than with reality.

Such as: Cornell University's study on fracking saying how evil it is, yet other major universities in the state of NY have done research on fracking and have not found the things Cornell is saying. Who to believe? Considering Cornell sits in Ithaca, NY and Ithaca truly is San Francisco east, (unofficial motto of Ithaca is "five square miles surrounded by reality") perhaps their study is more than likely to be slanted towards an environmentalist point of view.

The other universities may have had their studies paid for by the gas industry and therefore the viewpoint is going to be slanted towards the flow of money? I don't know, it's speculation.

What I do know is that many of the people who against fracking are against drilling in general. It doesn't matter if fracking occurs on the well or not, simply put, most are against the drilling to begin with. If you keep your ears open you'll hear it. Fracking is just more ammunition in a lot of cases.

Either way, I don't think you'll dispute the fact that there are specific taxes aimed just at the industry (high or low in your opinion is just that, it still exists), that jobs have been created when jobs are scarce, and a lot of people want cheap energy and they want it now. And all the while everything must be weighed together.

Is it a good thing to drill while unemployment is high, putting people to work? Is it a good thing that the flow of NG means energy costs stay low? Can it be done in such a way as to have a low environmental impact? Those are the questions that have to answered.
 
ramenth said:
I didn't know if it was you I was pointing out what was said, or not, sometimes I'll look at threads and, retain information and refer back to what was posted while I have reply box open. Thanks for clearing that up.

Even then, though, you'll admit, rather the taxes are higher or lower than most states it's a tax specifically aimed at the gas industry.

Most states call it an 'extraction fee'. In WV for example it's also applied to coal mining. Since the coal industry in PA has all but dried up I assume they didn't see enough revenue in taxing the coal industry.

Yes, some of the roads shouldn't be handling heavy truck traffic, but I think that, over time, it won't make a difference as the money earmarked for "wear and tear" on the roads won't be going to the roads at all, especially some of the more rural roads that the trucks will be using to haul in equipment. Once the valve is set, the traffic ends and the need for upgrading doesn't exist. And I don't see anyone going along before the gas drillers and doing the necessary upgrades first.

That money will used for other things inside the political/bureaucratic machine.

Even it it's applied to other roads, such as interstate or state routes, most of those roads are already designed for heavy truck traffic and the "wear and tear" will be minimum as thousands of trucks pass over them on a daily basis to begin with.

The thing of it is, though, when it comes to drilling, much like global warming, both sides have "facts" to present their arguments. Most of the time those "facts" have more to do with an agenda than with reality.

Such as: Cornell University's study on fracking saying how evil it is, yet other major universities in the state of NY have done research on fracking and have not found the things Cornell is saying. Who to believe? Considering Cornell sits in Ithaca, NY and Ithaca truly is San Francisco east, (unofficial motto of Ithaca is "five square miles surrounded by reality") perhaps their study is more than likely to be slanted towards an environmentalist point of view.

The other universities may have had their studies paid for by the gas industry and therefore the viewpoint is going to be slanted towards the flow of money? I don't know, it's speculation.

What I do know is that many of the people who against fracking are against drilling in general. It doesn't matter if fracking occurs on the well or not, simply put, most are against the drilling to begin with. If you keep your ears open you'll hear it. Fracking is just more ammunition in a lot of cases.

Either way, I don't think you'll dispute the fact that there are specific taxes aimed just at the industry (high or low in your opinion is just that, it still exists), that jobs have been created when jobs are scarce, and a lot of people want cheap energy and they want it now. And all the while everything must be weighed together.

Is it a good thing to drill while unemployment is high, putting people to work? Is it a good thing that the flow of NG means energy costs stay low? Can it be done in such a way as to have a low environmental impact? Those are the questions that have to answered.
Click to expand...

I''m all for drilling for gas in PA. However, I don't trust corporations on the whole. The reason we have an EPA is because corporations are notoriously bad stewards of the environment. Rivers should not catch fire! As I see it, PA should levy a fair tax to cover infrastructure and then some because this is a non replaceable natural resource. As long as they cover those bases......drill baby drill!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top