Comment

Comment by David Swann on January 10, 2012 at 3:05am

300.00 and 12% is low, my friend got $3,500 per acre and 18% and free home gas.

The gas cost should not be considered, because it really cost them very little to give it to you.

Comment by joe on January 10, 2012 at 2:06am

wanted to give a heads up to everyone out there, had a neighbor ask me about an offer from a company I haven't heard about yet, lario, who were offering only 300.00 and just 12% for the lease.  The different spin is they are also offering free household gas.

Comment by Adam Thomas on January 9, 2012 at 8:02am

I know the people that own the property that the Parkman well is being drilled on. Their leases are from late 60's- early 70's. They did not receive any up-front money. They are currently drilling a test well to see if it will be worth drilling horizontals or not.

Comment by Alan Pavlik on January 9, 2012 at 6:33am

I don't think you'll know alot in the near future as far as the results of the Parkman well, its hasn't even been drilled horizontally yet. I believe that Chesapeake is testing the parimeters of the Utica Shale and will go from there. I also think that alot of Geauga County is under lease at this time by HBP or term leases from prior activity in the Clinton formation least in the area that would be deemed productive at this time (the southern part of Geauga) so I'm not sure what bandwagon there is to jumped upon

Comment by Michael Vary on January 9, 2012 at 2:45am

Shantycreekfarms, I agree with you, However, it's not that people aren't interested. It's the fact that there aren't many people out there with TONS of information yet. Does anyone know what the Parkman Group got paid? Does anyone know if it's started producing Oil/Gas/Wetgas yet? These are all questions we want to know the answer to. It's just that no one seems to have that info.

Comment by shantycreekfarms on January 8, 2012 at 4:24pm

 I dont  mean to be rude, but sure not a lot of activity on this thread considering what is going on in parkman. I would think there would be more people interested in getting some insight to the future of the county,unless people are still unaware of whats going on with the area.Need to spread the word.

Comment by Alan Pavlik on December 30, 2011 at 11:44pm

James Kern:

I coudn't have said it better. I tend to get emotional when I see the propaganda wriiten by the anti-fracking groups, you stated your position from a logical not emotional point of view.  We all enjoy the creature comforts of life here in America and some of these things that we consider a must in our lives. I do believe that the anti-fracking position is appearing at the same time because more money is appearing into the communities where big bonus monies have already been paid and exploration is to follow. Makes me wonder

Comment by James Kerns on December 30, 2011 at 5:58pm

Hi Tilia, I can appreciate that you have strong feelings about the subject and are concerned for the environment, please understand that most of us who live in rural America  also care deeply and would not knowingly harm our little patch of dirt for any amount of money.

Fracking fluid CAN contain a mixture of many different chemicals as well as the major components of water and sand, but mostly contain but a few chemicals and in low concentration. Pressure, water and silica sand are the key ingrediants. Hydrochloric acid is one of the acids i am familiar with as a very minor ingrediant of the fracking fluids used on many of the vertical wells i am more familiar with, and as i am sure you already know, fracking has been used for about SIXTY years now, with great results and very little documented harm to anyone or anything. 

Hydrochloric acid pumped with silica sand and water 5,000 to 9,000 feet underground, has little chance to invade your fresh water wells thirty feet under your home. On the other hand a sloppy operator of the well can release into our environment alot of pollution AT THE SURFACE.

Hydrochloric acid found in most dark soda's ( Coke) does how much damage in how many documented ways to the body of a young child, but how many moms are up in arms in front of Walmart protesting soda pop?

In every day life anywhere on this planet one can be subject to hazardous emissions in the air. When a house burns to the ground, how many toxic emissions are released to be breathed in over and over again by people hundreds of miles downwind. Have you ever seen that documentary "Blue Vinyl Siding" and the reported links to increased reproductive organ cancers to females even hundreds of miles downwind and away from any vinyl siding burned. What is your house sided with, your neighbors?

I could go on and on with many more things that you encounter every day that put you and your family at great risk. We all live with risk, we cannot escape it.

The very thing at the heart of all the environmentalist anti-drilling crowd is this. You cannot escape oil and gas. Oil and its products derived from oil, are found everywhere, in every facet of life now. You couldnt get away from oil if you tried to.

 The problem with your argument is just that, you need it, your soft lives depend on it and all the products that come from oil and gas. You just dont want there to be any chance for oil production to mess up your backyard in getting it for you, you dont want to see it or smell it, but you have to have it.

Now what about the poor little arab and iraq, Kuwaiti etc. children that have to grow up around the big smelly oilfields, does it bother you when you top off your tank, thinking about them. Does it bother you that America's finest young men and women are put in harms way to protect our oil interests overseas?

The "not in my backyard" attitude is laughable, we can and must reduce some of our dependance on the other OPEC nations, by developing in an environmentally responsible manner, our own domestic resources. The way i see it we have our backs up against the wall on this one.

Would you rather live downwind of a coal fired power plant or a natural gas fired power plant? Would you rather sit in traffic behind a diesel metro bus or an LP gas metro bus?

I wish you the best but please take the emotions out of you arguments and inject a little reasoning and logic.

Comment by Tilia on December 29, 2011 at 2:05pm

Like clean air and clean water?

There are inherent problems with hydrofracking. The process is proven to be a threat to environmental and human health. Most of the chemicals used in the fracking process are highly toxic and cause serious long and short term effects on human health. Fracking fluid contains known carcinogenic and toxic chemicals, and the process can also cause the the intermingling of natural gas, radioactive and toxic substances in the ground water.  A peer reviewed study  recently found that methane levels were 17 times higher in wells near hydrofracking sites.

Ohio is not equipped to deal with millions of gallons of toxic wastewater contaminated with heavy metals, toxic chemicals, gasses and radioactive susbtances which are released in hydrofracking. 

As well as polluting water, hydrofracking can release hazardous air emissions which can cause neurological, reproductive, and respiratory disorders.

Ohio should moratorium hydrofracking until the EPA completes their research study in to investigate the impacts of hydrofracking on human and environmental health.

Comment by Adam Thomas on December 28, 2011 at 3:01am

I couldn't agree more.  The Federal EPA as well as the Ohio Department of Natural Resouces have done extensive studies on it and have determined that when the wells are cased properly that it is completely safe.  As a result of the study done by the State of Ohio they were able to pass House Bill 165 which gives the state authority and ability to regulate these wells to the fullest extent.  If a company does not follow the regulations, they will be fined as well as the wells themselves plugged if they do not comply.  They have done Hydraulic Fracturing since the 1950's.  It is not new.  It is only the people that listen to the main stream media rather than to reseach it themselves that seem to be opposed.  They apparently do not realize that the media benefits if they create a controversy because controversy is what gets people to buy their papers or tune into their news broadcasts.  The more viewers or paper circulated, the more money they make from advertisers.  It is in the media's best interest to make it controvertial even if it isn't.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page