Jump to content

Gas and Oil Industry Courting Hunters


Recommended Posts

If you are going to attend a clay shooting fundraiser, don't do it for the gas industry please. These clowns will stoop to anything. They have been trying to convince hunters that hunters and the gas industry are partners... If you hunted doves and traveled out of state to gas land, you would see these sort of newspaper ads all over. Ridiculous...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we leave Cuomo and/or the Safe Act out of one post? Cuomo, like Obama, was initially Pro-fracking. Obama probably still is. Currently, Last I heard, Cuomo is not committing to a stance on fracking, and is going along with the legislature and the public and agrees to  weigh a health impact study not yet completed.

 

The intended message here, is the industry is spending money and making an effort to befriend hunters. They don't offer me a darn thing, if you think they offer you something, then be pro-fracking. Personally I am anti-fracking.... I am also anti-BS. And it gets under my skin that the industry is basically trying to weasel their way into the good graces of the hunting community. I think disingenuous weaseling gets under the skin of most people.

 

Cuomo didn't act alone in the safe act, and there are more vulnerable politicians in the legislature than him. A lot of all this is just wind or a loyalty to the republican party, because if one was truly concerned, they would be after those in the legislature, including the republicans who wrote the safe act and the republicans who voted for the safe act. Cuomo is under a term limit, the lawmakers are not.... We have one of the most egregious republicans in senate district 60 reeling, yet why aren't all the tough guys pouring it on? Promote Kevin Stocker who took the republican nomination away from Grisanti.

 

On this site, below each post there are buttons for FB, twitter, google plus and other social media sites - start using them...

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The article is correct on the specific content in which it explores. It talks solely about the green house gas emissions. If you burn a therm (1000,000 Btu) of natural gas and one therms worth of #6, #4, #2 oil, or coal (the fuels natural gas is replacing), you would have less green house gas (co2 & co2e) emissions than if you burnt those other fuels. That's easy to illustrate mathematically. In all reality they could replace the article with a simple excel chart...

 

What the article doesn't touch on, and the reason for the controversy, is the method in which the natural gas is obtained. The method is dangerous and the fluids used (last I have heard) are not yet vetted. Last conference I attended on the topic there was a presenter talking about the fracking and the fluid being used was "proprietary", therefor they would not disclose all ingredients. Hydraulic fracking also raises another eyebrow because of the pressure in which the fluid is pumped deep underground. When doing this, you are messing with very old geologic formations that are unpredictable. What happens when something geologic related moves due to delta P (change in pressure)? You can't simply send a crew down there to remedy the problem. Then we have this mystery fluid down there, near water sources... Even if just the natural gas gets in the water, you have just introduced hydrocarbons to the water... I wouldn't want to drink that and doubt you would either. 

 

Nice article but...only half the story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half the story, yes.  But the only half with factually quantifiable data, rather than speculation and accusation.  The other side of the story has a lot of "what if's", "maybe's" and "suppose's".  If the anti side is correct, they should be able to prove their claims.  Until they can, I do not accept their claims.

 

Like the Global Warming advocates, they need to prove their claims to justify their agenda.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, your absolutely correct. I completely forgot that we shouldn't question or most importantly research unknowns. As I stated before I would need to charge tuition to go further.

 

 

 

 

Half the story, yes.  But the only half with factually quantifiable data, rather than speculation and accusation.  The other side of the story has a lot of "what if's", "maybe's" and "suppose's".  If the anti side is correct, they should be able to prove their claims.  Until they can, I do not accept their claims.

 

Like the Global Warming advocates, they need to prove their claims to justify their agenda.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody suggested we shouldn't question or research.  What was said is we shouldn't make claims without proof.  The anti gun crowd and the global warming crowd do it constantly to support their agenda and their claims have been proven false.  There are plenty of fracking areas, all over America, where answers to claims can be proven, if they are true.  As of this date, most anti-fracking claims remain accusations.

 

In order to have a more intellectually unbiased opinion, you may have to pay tuition, and avoid anti-fracking seminars pushing an agenda.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been involved in local election politics, I can state unequivocally that opposition to fracking cuts completely across party lines in rural Otsego County. A long-term Republican Councilman lost to a first time independent in my town last year. This is unprecedented. Fracking was the single issue that separated them. Until more is known, I don't want this in my neighborhood.

 

My VJP is correct to a point. The science about fracking is growing daily and it doesn't look good.

 

I own my whole watershed but according to NYS law, if my neighbors go along with the oil and gas companies, they can drill under me and I can't stop them. For those of you who think fracking is a good idea, how can you support such a violation of individual property rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression you had to sell them the rights to go under your land.  When they come into an area, they pay a price per acre to all landowners for the right to extract from the shale deep below your land.  Why would they pay each landowner if they could go under your land without buying the rights?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you don't have to sell them anything. The Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law allows them to drill under unwilling landowners. The gas company must have leases to 60% of a unit. I think a unit is a square mile. The units can be defined by the gas company. They can gerrymander a large lease into units to take advantage of unwilling owners around it. The process is called Compulsory Integration - http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/1590.html.

 

They must pay you royalties for the gas you don't want to sell. They get to meter the gas they pay you for. They are not allowed to set foot on your property - but they can drill under your feet.

 

It is an outrageous violation of property rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The units are different sizes depending on how deep they are going to drill. I found a old lease my grandfather had on the farm I own now. The farm is 200 acres and they wanted to drill in the Queenston Formation and those unit only need to be around 40 acres per well, so they could have drilled up to 4 wells on the property. Lucky they never drilled as this lease was all for the gas company and not for the land owner. The lease stated they had the right to 100,000 cf of gas per well before they started to pay a royalty .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economist Stephen Moore: "The one common theme of the green marchers these days is they hate fracking, even though it has done more to reduce greenhouse gases than all the government subsidies to wind and solar power combined. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups which once saw natural gas as a valuable 'bridge' fuel to the future, now denounce this wonder fuel. ... Shale gas is a wonder fuel because it is clean-burning, abundant, domestically produced, and cheap. The price of natural gas has fallen by more than half over the last six years and we have at least 150 years of supply in the Marcellus Shale and elsewhere. The Left’s unhinged objections to natural gas exposes their real aspirations. They aren’t fighting to stop global warming or the rise of the oceans; they’re fighting to stop growth itself. Americans better wake up to that reality, before the greens actually succeed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be interesting if a compressed air option can be developed to replace the liquid under pressure method in busting up the shale, then numerous concerns on water quality underground and above ground could be greatly reduced. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economist Stephen Moore: "The one common theme of the green marchers these days is they hate fracking, even though it has done more to reduce greenhouse gases than all the government subsidies to wind and solar power combined. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups which once saw natural gas as a valuable 'bridge' fuel to the future, now denounce this wonder fuel. ... Shale gas is a wonder fuel because it is clean-burning, abundant, domestically produced, and cheap. The price of natural gas has fallen by more than half over the last six years and we have at least 150 years of supply in the Marcellus Shale and elsewhere. The Left’s unhinged objections to natural gas exposes their real aspirations. They aren’t fighting to stop global warming or the rise of the oceans; they’re fighting to stop growth itself. Americans better wake up to that reality, before the greens actually succeed."

 

So, if I want to preserve my property rights and pure water, how do I fit into this "theme"?

 

Do you like the idea of home rule, or do you think the court should have ruled that towns have to accept it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if I want to preserve my property rights and pure water, how do I fit into this "theme"?

 

Do you like the idea of home rule, or do you think the court should have ruled that towns have to accept it?

 

 

 

It won't affect your property rights, and unless there is a well drilled on your property that has a leaking shaft, it won't affect your water, because is way too far below it.

 

I think home rule is a problem because the majority of voters don't own a lot of land and are being scared by anti-fracking accusations.  Most of those who are for it own big land parcels and are in the minority of total voters in a given area.  But the economic benefits of the gas production, from jobs, to taxes and peripheral income at diners, stores, gas stations, etc., benefits all in the area.  Until the negative claims from fracking are proven, I thing the quote above from Economist Stephen Moore is accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't affect your property rights, and unless there is a well drilled on your property that has a leaking shaft, it won't affect your water, because is way too far below it.

 

I think home rule is a problem because the majority of voters don't own a lot of land and are being scared by anti-fracking accusations.  Most of those who are for it own big land parcels and are in the minority of total voters in a given area.  But the economic benefits of the gas production, from jobs, to taxes and peripheral income at diners, stores, gas stations, etc., benefits all in the area.  Until the negative claims from fracking are proven, I thing the quote above from Economist Stephen Moore is accurate.

 

Let's set aside the possibility of a leak. Are you saying that drilling under someone's land and forcing them to sell their personal property is not a violation of individual property rights?

 

Now regarding contamination, there are multiple issues of health and safety which the industry wants to ignore beyond water contamination: the highest ozone pollution in the country is in a gas field in rural CO. Read a little about Dish TX and what happened there.

 

You believe they drill too deep to affect my water. Are you aware of the geologic faults that have been mapped in Otsego County? Are you aware that the lubricants in fracking fluid are causing small earthquakes along such faults? Do you know enough about geology to assure me the faults are not a pathway for contamination? True, most leaks are around well casings. That is no comfort if they drill next to my property line.

 

My daughter worked in this industry before going back to school for her Ph.D. She told me the "best case scenario" for me if drilling went forward in NYS was someone would drill a dry hole near me and they would give up on my area.

 

There are so many concerns about this technology, caution and patience is warranted. Others are now the guinea pigs for this industry. Let's see how well they do as health studies continue.

 

There has been a lot of propaganda from both sides. Let the industry prove the legitimate negative claims are not true before they put me and my family at risk. The gas is not going anywhere.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2014/10/8553530/cuomo-administration-edited-and-delayed-key-fracking-study

 

interesting read.

 

I had no idea they were considering another salt storage facility for NG after the one in Avoca went belly up. That one failed when they couldn't get the sand layer in the disposal wells to accept the volume of salt solution that was going to be produced during the cavern construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's set aside the possibility of a leak. Are you saying that drilling under someone's land and forcing them to sell their personal property is not a violation of individual property rights?

 

Legally, it's not.  And no one forces you to sell.  You can hold out as long as you like and they cannot drill below your land until you sell to them.  Many people hold out as long as they can and get paid higher prices per acre than those who sold out right away. How deep below ground do you think your property rights go?

 

Now regarding contamination, there are multiple issues of health and safety which the industry wants to ignore beyond water contamination: the highest ozone pollution in the country is in a gas field in rural CO. Read a little about Dish TX and what happened there.

 

And with proper regulations in place, it doesn't happen every where else.

 

You believe they drill too deep to affect my water. Are you aware of the geologic faults that have been mapped in Otsego County? Are you aware that the lubricants in fracking fluid are causing small earthquakes along such faults? Do you know enough about geology to assure me the faults are not a pathway for contamination? True, most leaks are around well casings. That is no comfort if they drill next to my property line.

 

The gas companies are sure enough about the faults to guarantee your water will not become contaminated or they will supply you with free spring water for life. There is a certain distance required around all wells that would keep it far from your property line

 

My daughter worked in this industry before going back to school for her Ph.D. She told me the "best case scenario" for me if drilling went forward in NYS was someone would drill a dry hole near me and they would give up on my area.

 

Hearsay and accusation is the main attack the greenies use.

 

There are so many concerns about this technology, caution and patience is warranted. Others are now the guinea pigs for this industry. Let's see how well they do as health studies continue.

 

To date all concerns have proven unfounded and health studies take a lifetime.  How long do you want NY's economy to suffer the lack of growth it has now?

 

There has been a lot of propaganda from both sides. Let the industry prove the legitimate negative claims are not true before they put me and my family at risk. The gas is not going anywhere.

 

You cannot prove something will not happen.  You can only prove something will happen.  Can all gun owners prove they will never use a gun to commit a crime?  No?  Should we disarm all gun owners?  

 

The gas isn't going anywhere, but neither is NY's job growth and economy.  This is a opportunity waiting, but it may not wait forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By mike rossi
      Source: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/100236.html
       
      Climate Change Adaptation in New York
       
      A big gap in the road by the shore of a waterbody that was washed out
      Higher sea levels intensify storm surges.
      Superstorm Sandy's ferocious surge damaged
      this road in Mount Loretto unique area, Staten Island.
      New York's climate is becoming wetter and warmer.
      Scientists project greater weather variability, with intense storms becoming more frequent and floods more damaging. Precipitation is likely to increase somewhat, but between wet periods we may endure several weeks when no rain falls.
      How much our climate actually changes will depend in part on how successfully, and how soon, nations are able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
      But some climate change is already unavoidable. New York is working to estimate likely risks and help communities and businesses adapt to a changing climate.
      Sea-level rise projection meetings June 23-25
      To strengthen New York's preparedness for climate change, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo recently signed into law the Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA). CRRA requires DEC and other state agencies to adopt by January 1, 2016 official State sea-level rise projections that willl serve as the basis for State adaptation decisions and will be available for use by all decision makers.
      Before DEC proposes a draft regulation adopting sea-level rise projections, four meetings, including a webinar, will provide an opportunity for public input. Later in 2015, a draft rule will be made available for formal public comment.
      At the meetings, DEC staff will introduce CRRA and present scientific information being considered relative to the regulation establishing sea-level rise projections. Participants will have opportunity to provide additional input for consideration.
      Public meeting dates and locations are as follows:
      Tuesday, June 23 - 1:00 p.m. at Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center, 340 Smith Road, Shirley, Suffolk County
      Tuesday, June 23 - 7:00 p.m. at Operation Splash, 202 Woodcleft Ave., Freeport, Nassau County
      Wednesday, June 24 - 10:00 a.m. at Hunter College, West Building, Room 511, 67th St. and Lexington Ave., New York City, New York County
      Thursday, June 25 - 2:30 p.m. at DEC headquarters, Room 129, 625 Broadway, Albany, Albany County
      Individuals planning to attend the June 25 meeting in Albany are asked to pre-register with the Office of Climate Change at [email protected] or by phone at 518-402-8448. Failure to pre-register may result in delayed entry to the meeting. Those attending must present photographic identification. For additional information on CRRA and the sea-level rise projection regulation, contact the Office of Climate Change.
      The June 25 meeting will be accessible via WebEx webinar service
      Meeting Number: 642 587 387
      Meeting Password: tides1
      To join the webinar
      Go to https://meetny.webex.com/meetny/j.php?MTID=md76e33d4a7d61457259b1bfe099c73d9
      If requested, enter your name and email address.
      Enter the meeting password: tides1
      Click "Join." To view in other time zones or languages, click the link: https://meetny.webex.com/meetny/j.php?MTID=m2c3946e751a0f3d69c03b16aabc45929
      To join the audio conference only
      Provide your number when you join the meeting to receive a call back. Alternatively, you can call one of the following numbers: Local: 1-518-549-0500 Toll Free: 1-844-633-8697 Alternate Toll Free (For callers not able to call the 844 Toll Free Number): 1-866-776-3553
      Follow the instructions that you hear on the phone.
      Extreme events threaten resources and people
      Extreme weather and floods make headlines -- they kill and injure, disrupt entire regions, contaminate water and promote insect borne diseases. Cleanup and restoration consume scarce public- and private-sector resources, often for months or years.
      For New York's coastal and estuarine areas, the greatest climate risk is flooding from the combination of more frequent severe storms and rising seas. With more than half of the state's population, and infrastructure worth many billions of dollars, our coastal areas are vulnerable to widespread suffering and loss from floods.
      For upland areas of the state, projections show more frequent heavy precipitation events. Torrential rains and heavy snow or ice create risks to life, health and infrastructure. Such storms can disrupt not only travel, electric power and communication, but also agriculture, tourism and other vital economic sectors.
      Everyday climate risks also raise vulnerability
      Snowy scene of trees weighted down with snow next to power cables also covered in snow
      Heavy ice events disrupt
      electric power, communications
      and transportation.
      Not only extreme events, but also any change from the predictable and moderate conditions of the past can interfere with accustomed activities and create new risks. The changes discussed below have been observed in New York and are projected to continue.
      Rising sea levels: Mid-range projections (25 to 75 percent likelihood) of sea-level rise along New York's coast are 18 to 50 inches in this century. Such high levels would greatly intensify the danger and damage from storm-related flooding.
      Warmer temperatures: Long, intense heat waves raise health risks for human and animal populations. Warm winters and hot summers will likely lower the productivity of temperature-sensitive agricultural products like maple syrup, apples and dairy. Warmer weather also favors disease carriers and pests.
      New precipitation patterns: Heavy precipitation is expected to fall more frequently, and there may be a trend toward longer-lasting events that compound the damage. Similarly, persistent shortages of precipitation can be expected more often. Such shortages can lower field crop yields and reduce the amount of water available for drinking, irrigation and hydropower.
      Weather variability: Unusual weather not only inconveniences people, but also disrupts natural cycles. For instance, warm spells in late winter can make plants bud and bloom early. Young leaves and flowers are vulnerable to severe damage if temperatures later swing back below freezing; early blooms may be gone before the arrival of birds or insects that pollinate and feed on them.
      Setting up for resilience
      Climate change impacts already are testing New Yorkers' ability to survive problems and come back better.
      These impacts are likely to intensify, increasing the value of resilience measures adopted now.
      As climate change progresses, more New Yorkers are likely to confront physical disasters like Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy. What is more, most of us will encounter impacts that are less dramatic but still costly or disturbing - more dying trees, lower crop or garden yields, our favorite catch missing from the creel.
      Recent experiences, accumulating data and current projections are revealing how climate risks threaten different areas of New York. Knowledge of these risks enables businesses, governments and individuals to plan for resilience.
      Community Risk and Resiliency Act (CRRA)
      Stream and collapsed bridge
      This bridge over Stony Clove Creek in Ulster
      County is an example of the extensive damage
      to inland New York's infrastructure by ten days of record rainfall from Hurricane Irene (2011).
      CRRA includes two key provisions to advance New York's climate change adaptation:
      First, applicants to certain State programs must demonstrate that they have taken into account future physical climate risks caused by storm surges, sea-level rise or flooding.
      Second, DEC must establish in regulation State-adopted sea level rise projections, which will be used as the basis for State adaptation decisions and will be available for use by all decision makers.
      CRRA applies to specific State permitting, funding and regulatory decisions, including smart growth assessments; funding for wastewater treatment plants; siting of hazardous waste facilities; design and construction of petroleum and chemical bulk storage facilities; oil and gas drilling, and State acquisition of open space.
      Sea-level rise projections
      New York State has sponsored a statewide study of the impacts of climate change on our population and resources. Titled ClimAID, the study was completed in 2011; a 2014 supplement updated its sea-level rise projections and incorporated data from recent severe storms and updated climate modeling.
      Cows outside barn behind electric wire fence with heads poking through
      Dairy cows produce less milk in very hot weather,
      so as temperatures warm New York will see
      impacts on one of its prime agricultural sectors.
      An additional sea-level rise study, limited to Nassau and Suffolk counties, has been released by the New York State Resiliency Institute for Storms and Emergencies (RISE). The reports and supplement are available through the ClimAID and RISE links at right.
      Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Generation
      The American Planning Association's Hazards Planning Center worked under an agreement with FEMA to develop Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Generation. This updated manual offers an explanation of the benefits and limitations of planning for unpredictable events (see link at right).
      Protecting families and communities
      People sometimes raise concerns about the cost to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate resilience. The preliminary analysis of ClimAID 2011 shows that failure to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change in a timely fashion may prove more costly than the supposed "savings" from delaying a response.
      The high cost of doing nothing
      It is important to compare outlays for adaptation measures with the costs of doing nothing, and to take into account the importance of climate change losses to society.
      ClimAID 2011 (link at right) initiated these comparisons with a statewide analysis of limited data on eight economic sectors. This study concluded that unless resilience measures are put in place, by mid-century the total costs of climate change for key economic sectors in New York State each year may approach $10 billion (in 2010 dollars).
      The study projected the largest likely direct impacts and costs of climate change in coastal areas, chiefly impacting transportation, energy and other infrastructure, and natural resources. However, it concluded, all economic sectors and all parts of the state will feel impacts like lower agricultural crop yields and dairy production, or declining winter recreation tourism.
      Aerial view of flooded buildings and parking lot
      Extensive power outages or flood damage to roads can disrupt a wide area for many weeks.
      For one or more elements in each sector analyzed, the projections show the following mid-century (2050s) annual costs of climate change impacts: water resources, $116-203 million; ocean coastal zones, $44-77 million; ecosystems, $375-525 million; agriculture, $140-289 million; energy, $36-73 million; transportation, $100-170 million; communications, $15-30 million; and public health, $2,998-6,098 million. These figures probably understate the aggregate expected costs, especially for heavily developed coastal areas.
      Improving resilience: cost-effective common sense
      As the global average temperature rises, New Yorkers already are seeing more extreme precipitation, heat and storms. Making our properties and communities more resilient in the face of these changes is common sense and good business.
      Before DEC drafts a proposed regulation, four meetings, including a webinar, will provide an opportunity for public input. Later in 2015, the draft rule will be made available for formal comment.
    • By G-Man
      http://wivb.com/2015/06/04/epa-releases-report-prompts-lawmaker-to-call-for-fracking-in-ny/
    • By mike rossi
      http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/08/pipeline-incidents-since-1986.html
    • By mike rossi
      This video will supposedly be removed soon, so you should watch it soon.
       
      http://youtu.be/AdlVH1IjQu4
       
       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...