The most common accusations against shale exploration - and yes, ANSWERS

It seems as though these days people just aren't willing to do any unbiased investigating concerning the issue of natural gas drilling before jumping on the "stop drilling - natural gas companies are evil" bandwagon.  It may not seem like it from all the news articles you come across, but the overwhelming majority of people are actually pro-drilling.  However, the majority of non-industry people (regular citizens) who are actually voicing their opinions are the anti-drilling groups. 

 

If you google Marcellus drilling, you will get 100's of pages of the fears of fracking, pollution, companies raping the land like coal companies, etc..  The problem is that the industry is painted as not caring about the environment, and going by its own rules.  Here are the most common accusations against natural gas drilling.  Again, take my comments with a grain of salt and do some real research on your own before believing anything.  And by research, I dont mean newspapers, or extreme websites... I mean peer reviewed science literature.  Here we go:

 

 

Q:  Why dont companies tell us what chemicals are in frack fluids?!?   

 

A.  This is a claim found everywhere and it's such a misleading question.  It's posed as if these companies are hiding something.  The chemicals used have never been a secret to the public.  I don't understand why this keeps coming up when the info is right there.  Example: Go to Chesapeake's website.  They put a large link to the "frac facts" right on their homepage.  Yes, their homepage.  It lists every chemical in a frac fluid.  You may not agree with the chemicals involved, but don't say that they're not telling you.  Next question. 

 

 

Q.  Why don't companies release how much of each chemical is in their frac fluid?  

 

A.   Is that really the question you're looking to get an answer to?  If Haliburton said they were putting .0001 ounces of biocide per 100,000 gallons instead of .0002 ounces per 100,000 gallons... Would that change your view of fracking?   This question is asked (like the specific chemicals used in frac fluids question) in order to make the industry appear as if it has a dirty little secret.  Let's be logical, that small difference is not going to change your opinion, but it gives you the argument they're hiding something. 

 

The exact formulas to the T are not known, but the general amounts are known (down to a hundreth of one percent).  That's pretty damn good.  Like the specific chemicals involved, this question has an answer - again it's plastered on Chesapeake's home page.

 

Q.  We need to hold companies responsible for the wastewater!  We can't let them dump it wherever they want!

 

A.  There are actually incredibly strict sets of regulations for companies to abide by when dealing with their water.  If you don't abide by them, you are gone - see ya, no drilling permits are issued.  When I hear these claims I say to myself "Yes, you're right, we should be holding them accountable...We do.   There should be regulations... and there are".    It's like a person saying "We can't let police officers wear neon green dresses to work!"...  Well, I don't think anybody is arguing against that.  And they don't. 

 

The industry IS held responsible.  People need to understand that companies can not drill if they don't get every permit approved by the DEP.  If the DEP approves it, then why is the "blame" (used loosely) on the companies?   I expect the typical "because the DEP is in the pockets of the industry"..  leads me to my next false statement.

 

Q.  The DEP is in the pocket of the industry, that's why there are no regulations!

 

A.  Well, we've discussed the regulations already as being some of the strictest regulations in the country.  Now as to the DEP being corrupt.  That's a pretty bold statement to make considering nobody has any information as to why they say that (funny word I call "data").  I'm not going to say show me the data because that's a defensive statement.  I can say, however, that for every dollar lobbyists bring in for natural gas drilling, 100 are brought in by coal or oil.  1000 for renewables (biomass especially).  To say natural gas has a stranglehold is... well..  just wrong.  Do you wonder why the US has the most natural gas in the world, yet relies on it the least for electricity and fuel (generally speaking)?  Even if lobbyists do get some more support for natural gas drilling - are you against switching from gasoline to a cleaner natural gas fueled vehicle?  Are you against America being able to finally use it's own energy source and stop funding foreign corrupt countries?

 

 

There are literally hundreds of questions/claims just like this that have answers.  I know, it is tough to be able to tell what is factual and what is propoganda when you are new to this industry.  Even this post here, don't believe a word I say until you actually do a little digging from both sides.  Yes, go check out some of the problems involved with drilling, then check out how companies are addressing it.  Let's see if the extremists environmentalists have that type of comment ever (e.g. "go check out Exxon's safety record and come back to me").  They won't ever say that, because they know the truth is there which refutes their argument.  I am pro-natural gas, a proud American.  Go Marcellus.

Views: 1571

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by terry hazlett on February 12, 2010 at 2:08am
No, and no predjudice, it just seems the vacationers from NYC seem to be more concerned about water and fracing issues than the people that actually live there! and telling people what they shouldn't let the og co's do on they're property.
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on February 12, 2010 at 3:52am
Dear Terry,
Sadly, that is probably true. From what I've seen, and granted that it is a very small sample of folks, most of our neighbors are well meaning, god fearing folk who trust in others and whose word is their bond.

That is not a corporate business model,to say the least. When they come up against an entrenched economic interest they often end up on the short end of the stick.

I have many of my neighbors who had leased their mineral rights for $5-$200/acre in the past. Money was needed, so the deals were struck. In retrospect, many feel that they were not treated fairly- not on the money end, for they accept their decision and are prepared to live with it- but on what they were told and led to believe at the time. They relied upon the landsman as an honest, trustworthy neighbor who wouldn't try to do them wrong.

New Yorkers come with a different mind set- they expect that the corporate need for profit will not try to look out for their personal interests, and view all transactions from a skeptical point of view.

The cultural differences that you had observed is only now slowly changing, as the rural landowners become more alert to how to negotiate/protect that which they have. More city like, less neighbor like.

The bottom line is that both landowner and gas company need to find the balance to coexist for the benefit of both. Aquifer concerns and a host of other issues all need to be carefully explored to come up with the right solution for all the parties.

Too long winded on my part-but I do feel strongly on the issue. Thanks for listening.
Dan
Permalink Reply by drillman on February 12, 2010 at 4:16am
How hard is it for you or anyone else for that matter to understand that the Landman (again, not "landsman") represents the best interests of the company? When you list your home with a realtor, you become the client of the realtor. They had better try to get you the best possible deal. They do not represent the buyer. Help me to understand why you think otherwise.
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on February 12, 2010 at 5:13am
Dear Drillman,
What you point out is correct, from a business model. Apparently you're savvy along those lines, and know how to view the vested interests involved. My point was that from my understanding of the way folks did their transactions, they relied upon the good neighbor policy of looking out for both parties, so that the final deal was satisfactory to both. Neither had to be on guard, so to speak, from their neighbor/friend.

Sadly, that kind of transaction is no longer the norm. Now, as you say, you need to be alert to the probability that your negotiating partner is not looking out for your interests, and that you had better assume that the deal in progress is skewed towards one party.

Unfortunately, this now means that to protect oneself you need to hire an attorney to look out for the traps. I mourn the passing of the old tradition , one of innocence and faith in one's neighbor, to the new norm of assuming that everyone is out to get you if they can.

I guess it comes down to this- when you give me your hand/word on something-that is no longer enough. So sad.
Dan
Permalink Reply by Dee Fulton on February 12, 2010 at 8:40am
Be assured that I live in shale country.
Permalink Reply by drillman on February 12, 2010 at 2:27am
Dee: I personally find your repeated use of LOL is annoyingly condescending.
Permalink Reply by Dee Fulton on February 12, 2010 at 12:11pm
What. Didn't you find the question about writing with a NY accent just a little bit funny? Lighten up and have fun! And, BTW, technically I only used LOL once. The first time was an accident as I explained. Purely unintentional. Like when you're in line at the grocery store and a little noisy fart slips out and you see people's heads swivel. Accidents happen.

I also find it curious that someone who throws bold language around like "There is not truth in Dee's post." "obstructionist propaganda" "shameful hypocrisy from bunch of nimbys" "a dangerous group" and "rather hug a tree than your fellow human being" ......could be so....so......sensitive. Deep down inside you're really a sensitive guy. I'm sorry for offending you.

Now that we've cleared the air, can we get back to sharing information and get away from the character assassination posts which are giving this forum a tabloid-like quality?
Permalink Reply by drillman on February 12, 2010 at 3:36pm
No. I don't think so.
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on February 15, 2010 at 12:47pm
Dear BuckinghamGasman,
You showed rare good judgment in having your lease require the pre & post testing be done. I wish that more of our folks could have had that. Hopefully our discussions will alert the new shalers to the need for it. Personally, I believe a yearly testing is called for to catch any problems in an early rather than later stage
Wishing you good luck in your endeavors,
Dan
Permalink Reply by Jean Michel LeTennier on February 20, 2010 at 7:35am
The move the USA using Natural gas instead of Oil has begun in earnest... now imagine the USA saving 1.5 Trillion dollars a year from going overseas and staying in the US economy, also cutting off funding from terrorists at the same time... oh and bring back US soldiers to their families
http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/02/
Permalink Reply by Craig T. Pistner on February 21, 2010 at 1:24am
Has anyone contacted T Boone Pickens or his companies
Permalink Reply by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on February 21, 2010 at 3:00pm
We landowners are the LAST people to find out about the marcellus. The only reason we know now is because the technology from other shale gas plays allowed the marcellus to be a reasonable (and now VERY PROFITABLE) venture.

Even after studying this for the last two years, every day, they are still way ahead. But I am catching up....

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service