Recent Offers in the Marcellus Shale
1. State
2. County
2. Lease Bonus Offer
3. Royalty %
4. Terms (length of the lease)
Views: 14276
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Smith on
-
The same thing most likely happened down South if you were to checkand investigate. It is a normal flow of business. Take the easy pickings at first, i.e. uninformed, poor, ignorant, desperate and the hold outs get the big money near the end and the scary part is a few may get by passed and that is the fear that is making a lot of people sell out early. Not to mention, that Pa rural area people have very low incomes and any bonus money is truly a bonus.
My view point is fairway people should hang on and if your on the fringe like Luzerne County, then it is a different story. The gas company was checking the fringe and gas was just not in quantities worth taking at this point in time. Thus, signing up first for anything was the right move, but that is not the case for 99% of the people on this site or forum.
-
Permalink Reply by Carol M. on
-
Joe,
Why are people against gas drilling when it's replacing coal as our primary electric generation fuel? Does coal mining cause more harm to our water and forest in PA than gas drilling? Did you lease your property to the gas company for drilling? Did you lease your coal to the coal company?
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Smith on
-
Carol M, In response to multiple threads comparing coal greenhouse gas (GHG)
> emissions to those of natural gas and biomass, I wanted to share some
> documents that you may not have seen and try to enlighten you.
>
> The upshot of this is that -- contrary to conventional wisdom --
> greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas and biomass (including trash and
> landfill gas burning) are actually WORSE than coal over a 20-year time
> frame and probably still worse than coal over a 50-100 year time frame.
> By no means does this mean that coal should be favored, but it surely
> means that we actually should move away from these sources. Urging a "transition" from
> one burnable fuel to another is counterproductive and is not truly a
> transition to the clean energy, zero emission, zero waste world we're
> seeking. More debunking the notion of "transition" fuels here:
> http://www.energyjustice.net/solutions/transition.html
>
>> NATURAL GAS:
>
> Carol M, If you put a CO2 stack monitor on a coal power plant and a same-sized
> natural gas power plant, the coal plant will be worse. This has usually
> been the end of the discussion, so people have the impression that coal is
> worse for global warming. However, natural gas is primarily methane,
> which is far more potent than CO2, especially if you consider its
> short-term impacts.
>
> At the People's Oil and Gas Summit in Pittsburgh (Nov 20, 2010), Cornell
> scientist Bob Howarth presented his findings. He showed that due to the
> methane leakage from throughout the natural gas infrastructure (from
> extraction to pipelines to end uses), natural gas emissions are as bad or
> far worse than coal over a 20 year time frame.
> CO2 lasts about 10 times longer in the atmosphere than CH4
> * in 20 year time, methane is 105 times as potent as CO2
> * in 100 years, it's 33 times [based on paper in Science magazine from Nov
> 2009]
> * the "methane is 20-fold worse than CO2 over 100 years" number is 15-year
> old science
>
> You can find his presentation here:
> http://earthworksaction.org/2010summit/Panel7_BobHowarth_Cornell.pdfI hope this helps you with your agressive question which keeps me defending something I don't support. I look forward to the interim use of Natural Gas for the next 40-50 years while we make our transition to H2O.
-
Permalink Reply by 31u232c1dthmc on
-
joe, has someone put a well on your property and ruined you water? if you look around pa coal mining has devistated the water table in several areas and fish may never be stocked again in some of the most beautiful streams in our state! if you have some info that states that marcellus wells are more destructive to our water table than coal mining, please let the rest of us know.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Smith on
-
What Water Table? Hey, the water table is being drained by Billions of gallons for the thousands of wells going in already and we still have over a 100,000 more wells to go just in Pa alone. For every action there is a reaction. As I mentioned before, I don't care. I will take the money and run, leave state. However, we recovered from the Coal disaster and we will find a way to recover from the future gas impact on the state. Don't worry, your increase in taxes will help take care of any future problems.
-
Permalink Reply by Sam Douglass on
-
There is some water being used by the gas drillers, maybe not billions of gallons. [Let's figure out how many wells are drilled over a given period of time and multiply it times the proper number of millions - reduced by the modest amount of water that is recovered and reused on the next fracking job. Maybe some drilling company can give us accurate figures]
I had not heard that it comes from the water table. I thought most of it came from streams and lakes fueled by run-off water and is readily replenished. It is probably a small fraction of the water used by others such as electricity producers and manufacturers.
Problems seem to arise occasionally from spills that should not happen. Also, problems have arisen from inadequate casing through the water table. I understand that the state has adopted strong regulations to minimize such events.
I take some comfort in the belief that the DEP is on top of those who spill and do less than adequate casing - at least during the current administration. We will have to wait and see what the new administration does in view of declarations against over-regulation.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Smith on
-
"The area where water fills the aquifer is called the saturated zone (or saturation zone). The top of this zone is called the water table. The water table may be located only a foot below the ground’s surface or it can sit hundreds of feet down."
"Groundwater supplies are replenished, or recharged, by rain and snow melt. In some areas of the world, people face serious water shortages because groundwater is used faster than it is naturally replenished. In other areas groundwater is polluted by human activities."
For every action there is a reaction. Evaporation comes into play. Time will tell.
As you stated, the close loop circuit is the answer. However, the companies are not there yet and regulations have not mandated this process. I support the gas drilling and they will work it out but it is just taking longer than I expected. They seem to be making as much money on the cheap as fast as they can before they are required to invest in comon sense procedures that will protect the water table.
-
-
Most of the stream damage came from coal came from earlier era when the overall public policy was to exploit our coal as a vehicle for our industrial growth [before all our heavy industry moved to the Far East]. The rule in the case law gave little or no relief. This kind of policy prevailed through WWII when Pittsburgh and environs made the steel that among other things helped win that war. Then attitudes changed and the law changed with a consistent tightening of regulation of the coal industry and its harmful water discharges. Now it is hard to find situations where the polluted mine water from active mines is not treated before discharge into streams. There is an enormous amount of damage to be cleaned up from the past - but it is happening. It is not easy. It is made a little easier by the fact that the heavy industry that made Pittsburgh is being replaced by hiking trails and such.
-
-
I like the way you think.
And you only hear them talking about one shale in Texas at a given location.
In PA and Eastern Ohio they talk about the Marcellus of course and all the big numbers you read seem to be calulated from that one shale - but then there are:
Utica
Upper Devonian - Ohio
Onandaga
etc.
Most of which can use the same drill pads and infrastructure and save major costs. And it has been suggested that these other strata could be as prolific as the Marcellus.
And there are millions of acres that will take years to drill.
And this is stuff is closer to eastern markets saving pipeline costs, probably cheaper to drill than the Barnett, cheaper land costs, probably a significantly lower decline curve on production etc.
There is no hurry unless you need cash now.
WOW!
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Knapp on -
Natural gas extraction uses a tiny fraction of the amount of water used in the industrial sector, especially power generation.
-
Permalink Reply by Thomas Brian Morton on
-
Here is the one from Chesapeake that stuck in my mind. The water used to drill and frack a well is once an done and equillevent to the water used for a golf course every 28 days and the water New York city uses every 13 MINUTES. something to think about
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Smith on
-
Yes, Golf courses use up to 1 million gallons per week. However, the golf course is on top of the surface and water gets reused. New York, here again, water goes down a drain or a toilet and eventually gets reused. Frac water is injected and the majority of it is never to be used again, lost under ground. The small percentage that comes back up contaminated is what every one is complaining about. The evaporation process works well on a golf course, but not too well at 5,000 feet underground. Water is a problem and the gas companies are working on a solution with the possibility of a close loop circuit. However, our effort is moving at a slower than admirable pace.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
