To Lease or Not to Lease: Has Anyone NOT signed a lease? I'd like to hear why you didn't

My wife and I are part of a landowners group that is in the process of having their Range Resources contract reviewed by attorneys.  We only have 3.2 acres and have not decided whether we are actually going to sign a lease.  I am curious to hear from people who started to go through the process and then at some point decided against it.  I'd like to hear your reasons.  FYI - I'm not posting this so I can attack people's decisions.  I am genuinely interested in hearing from people who decided not to sign a lease.  

 

Thanks in advance!

Views: 16351

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan on September 30, 2011 at 6:41am
 

Concerns or not drilling is going to happen around you like it or not. Other than a statement being made by not ultimately leasing, if there are air pollutants of concern the air will be unmeasurably cleaner around your land with wells all around you. If you have ever sprayed aerosol disinfectant or bug poison in your home you may have already done more harm to your air quality.

 

Your post has inspired more thought and discussion good or meaningless than most on this forum. Why don't you use this to see if there is an interest in a non-profit group start-up to access concerns and self monitor the air and water quality. With the amount of money the future will bring to the region folks with concerns whatever they may be should be willing to support a good cause. A good non-profit if not based on rumors and extremists with true concerns for the region and a large membership could have enough money to hire their own lobbyist. You could get legislation to have the energy companies buy the monitoring equipment for you. Some of these big companies have donated to communities schools etc. Has anyone directly asked them for support. They would maybe rather be building playgrounds or mountain bike paths over pipelines than the enormous spending on advertising. How much money is the State going to get in fees, taxes and their own leases and how will they spend it. If you want something better than you think the circumstances are change it. I would take the money than do so myself. With the potential for so many farmers getting royalties I’m afraid they may not be as productive growing food and a can of beans may go up in price again.

Permalink Reply by Barbara on September 30, 2011 at 6:50am
REFRESHING to see a positive mode of action and communication.  as a member here and a land owner and a person leased to a gas company and compelled to allow pipelines.........as many and of whatever kind they choose.....i do appreciate your input.
Permalink Reply by Chris Moore on September 30, 2011 at 2:08am
Joe, 
The old wells you speak of were done with fresh water fracking. The new horizontal wells require a great deal more land and are laden with a chemical mixture. For a list of some of the chemicals used go to page 8 of the US House of Representatives document which was published in April of this year. http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/docum....
 While many have no problems with the older wells, there have been considerable problems with the newer ones.  In addition, The EPA will not even complete their study on the safety of the process until late 2012.  I am all for progress, but putting the possible safety and well being of our communities ahead of common sense, clearly makes no sense at all to me.
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on September 30, 2011 at 3:29am

Actually, you are wrong.  Old wells are the source of most of the methane contamination of water wells. They were not cased to modern standards nor have they been maintained properly.

 

The new wells have had relatively few problems when you consider 7000 have been drilled. And they have gotten much better than they were five years ago.

 

And they use a chemical mix that is much safer now and have eliminated most of the toxic chemicals the used at first. Most frac water is recycled into the next well. And they now have advanced treatment systems, many of which are used on site, to treat the waste water before disposal.

 

Strange how all of you guys showed up at this site at the same time. What organization are you with and who coordinates your posts?

Permalink Reply by craig on September 30, 2011 at 4:24am
Jim, thanks for the post. I have grown tired of posting how things have changed for the better in the industry. Most anti-drillers don't want to know what is currently being done on drill sites. It seems they need some type of footing to further their agenda and that footing is in the past, not the present. I won't say anymore.
Permalink Reply by Chris Moore on September 30, 2011 at 10:55am

Jim ,

I am not sure where you live, but here in Ohio where I live even the gas company will tell you the old clinton wells were fracked with fresh water.  I have spent many hours with them, county commissioners, township trustees and the like. We all agree that the new horizontal fracking process is still somewhat experimental and poses risks to our land, water and air.  Maybe in your area they do things differently. 
That is a pretty neat observation you made about us all showing up at the same time. Personally, I don't know anyone on this forum, and wonder if perhaps the recent influx is due to the gas company moving in.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on September 30, 2011 at 2:22pm
What chemicals are added to the water for fracking is pretty irrelevant as there has never been any cases of those chemicals in any well water. What is of concern is the flowback water as it is pretty contaminated stuff.  There have been a few cases of surface accidents spilling the flowback water but those were dealt with and re-mediated and the companies fined. And they have greatly improved how flowback is handled. The risks from horizontal fracing are miniscule.  Any risks are from surface activities, which are the same risks there has always been.
Permalink Reply by craig on September 30, 2011 at 10:05am

Joe, to correct a few things:

First off, the new horizontal wells DO NOT use more land. Yes the pads are larger, however one pad now serves 6 to 10 wells on 4-6 acres with only ONE access road. The old way was one well to one pad of a couple acres and a road to each. Do the math. It is a lot smaller footprint on the land.

You claim the fracing fluid is "laden with chemicals". The defintion of laden is "adjective: heavily loaded or weighed down" Sorry but the frac fluid is NOT heavily laden with chemicals....unless 2% of a solution is now defined as heavily laden.

Again your choice of words is completely wrong "....considerable problems with the newer ones" The definition of considerable is :adjective:  notably large in size, amount, or extent. Please post a link to the considerable number of wells that have a problem....there are not anywhere near the number you present....unless you count the oil dripping from a pony motor onsite and other silly violations that are written up for no purpose but to fill out paper work.

The statement about putting POSSIBLE safety aside......if you would have left out possible, then i'd agree with your statement. However, if we refuse to make decisions until we are 99% sure it will be safe...we would still be riding horses and heating with the dreaded wood stove. Think about it, there will always be a possible problem, regardless of what one does. We just need to do this as safe as possible and move on...and that is what is happening today from my perspective at our local drilling sites. Read other threads here and see how drilling has changed in just the last 2 years...no holding ponds for used frac water, re-using frac water, etc. Just trying to keep the playing field level.

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Chris Moore on September 30, 2011 at 11:10am

Craig,

Honestly, not too sure who you work for, but you seem to think you are quite the expert. Personally, I was responding to Jonathan's question and offering my own opinion, just as you are.  My opinion is based on my own personal experience as well as the experiences of friends who live in PA, OK and TX. 
 I do have a question though,  you wrote-"Please post a link to the considerable number of wells that have a problem....there are not anywhere near the number you present....unless you count the oil dripping from a pony motor onsite and other silly violations that are written up for no purpose but to fill out paper work. "
I never presented a number, but if you like you can start with the links I gave to Jonathan. Personally, I don't have time to argue every little point with you, nor do I care to do so. As I mentioned previously, we as  a community are looking to banning or at least putting a moratorium on fracking in our area until the EPA study is done at the end of 2012.
No one has yet been able to convince me why the process should be used until the study is out.  And if fracking is so safe why then would Canton, North Canton, Yellow Springs, Hartville, Monroe Falls and Plain Township take measures against it in their Ohio towns?
Oh and if you are looking for the list of US cities that have taken measures in their towns you can find them here. 

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/fracking-action-cen...


 Happy reading!

Permalink Reply by craig on September 30, 2011 at 12:23pm

Chris, my above post was for Joe's information. Information that is based on experience and fact. I'm not arguing anything, just presenting contrary facts to the 'facts' you posted. 

I've read a fair amount of violation reports for PA and they are as I stated. Same with the chemical situation, and most others.

I went to your above link and looked around yesterday. I look everywhere regardless of the background of the organization hosting the site. Some sites are worth an in depth look, some are not.

I'm glad that you have some much confidence in a gov't agency, especially the EPA. That study will be so biased no matter which conclusion they come to, but that is not fact, just my opinion.

I see no reason a city or municipality can not legislate against drilling and fracing, that is what the USA is all about....as long as the majority of the residents agree. In Pa i believe you will find that these bans will be overturned, mostly on the grounds that it restricts private use of personal lands. Time will tell. Our twp passed a few common sense restrictions, all of which were already covered by the State. 

As far as the list of towns you cite, just because 'they' are doing it, doesn't make it right. Fear has a tendency to distort truth.

I will completely agree with you about down in Texas and i have been there....the drillers screwed up a fair amount there. But you must remember that all took place from 2-5 years ago. Things have changed dramatically since then...in fact today they  don't even do some of the things people are being told to be scared of. Get up to date info and maybe you will change your mind about things. If not it should still be enlightening.

 

Joe, do your own homework. If you do , you will make the right decision.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Barbara on September 30, 2011 at 12:06pm

whohoooo craig, you didn't stay quiet very long!!!  lol 

how about you stop condeming those whose thoughts disagree with your own, and YOU start posting facts and figures about the studies done , chemicals used, effects studied, etc that demonstrate your gung ho approach?  then we all have facts and figures, and that is a fair and level playing field from which people here...MEMBERS as much as you are...can learn things. 

you are probably right that methods are changing....AFTER mishaps .  so go ahead and supply the facts, as well as you want others who disagree with you to do.

this doesn't have to be a mean-spirited exchange.  maybe we can ALL learn something, even if we never agree totally.

the only comment i will make here regarding 'fracking fluid laden with chemicals' is not the percentage of them in the water, but rather the sheer AMOUNT that represents when we are speaking of MILLIONS  of gals of water used per well...........i think you will agree that that number does turn out to be quite large.  i think that may be what people refer to when they say 'laden', but i am not them.  it is, however, what i mean if i mention concerns about chemicals used.

thanks for listening. 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jonathan A Jones on September 30, 2011 at 1:34pm

Range Resources provided us with a document that shows what is actually in the fluid.  Assuming what they provided us is accurate, 99.5% of the liquid is water and sand.  The other .5% are 3 trademarked chemicals whose composition can be found on their site (I did not go look).  

I also agree with Barbara in that our exchanges don't have to be mean spirited.  I appreciate all the comments that have been posted and am pleasantly surprised that this thread is at the to of the GMS forum in popularity!  I think that we all know that things are not always rosy as some have depicted and conversely not always as bad either.  

Thank you for your participation in this discussion!  

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service