A list of the proposed chemicals to be used in the hydro-fracking process in NYS

[MuzzyLoader]

Holy Fracking Fluid Batman  ??? ... what a thread!

I've been offline for a few weeks with a laptop that had 3-legs in the air.  Today I purchased a new one.  So glad I did... I get to 'catch up' with what's been going on here.

Looks like this is a 'hot' topic, and rightfully so - too many rural homeowners in PA can light water straight from their kitchen faucet because large quantities of gas have 'fracked' into the aquifers.  I bet Wally World loves it... they probably have a hard time keeping bottled water on their shelves. 

I know from my perspective... I don't want any fracking going on anywhere near me - those underground aquifers travel for miles!

[Dave]

Holy Fracking Fluid Batman  ??? ... what a thread!

I've been offline for a few weeks with a laptop that had 3-legs in the air.  Today I purchased a new one.  So glad I did... I get to 'catch up' with what's been going on here.

Looks like this is a 'hot' topic, and rightfully so - too many rural homeowners in PA can light water straight from their kitchen faucet because large quantities of gas have 'fracked' into the aquifers.  I bet Wally World loves it... they probably have a hard time keeping bottled water on their shelves. 

I know from my perspective... I don't want any fracking going on anywhere near me - those underground aquifers travel for miles!

Muzzy I agree but some on this site believe hydro fracking never contaminated any thing. Check this out.

Quote from: nyantler on July 29, 2011, 02:37:53 pmIf you check...there has not been a single proven case where hydrofracking has contaminated a water supply, well or ground area.

[nyantler]

Holy Fracking Fluid Batman  ??? ... what a thread!

I've been offline for a few weeks with a laptop that had 3-legs in the air.  Today I purchased a new one.  So glad I did... I get to 'catch up' with what's been going on here.

Looks like this is a 'hot' topic, and rightfully so - too many rural homeowners in PA can light water straight from their kitchen faucet because large quantities of gas have 'fracked' into the aquifers.  I bet Wally World loves it... they probably have a hard time keeping bottled water on their shelves. 

I know from my perspective... I don't want any fracking going on anywhere near me - those underground aquifers travel for miles!

Muzzy I agree but some on this site believe hydro fracking never contaminated any thing. Check this out.

Quote from: nyantler on July 29, 2011, 02:37:53 pmIf you check...there has not been a single proven case where hydrofracking has contaminated a water supply, well or ground area.

And there has yet to be a proven case.. I didn't say it hasn't happened or I don't believe it happens... I said that there is no proven case... just alleged cases... if you want to state the facts.. that is the fact... not my opinion.

Environmental and human health concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing include the contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, and the potential mishandling of waste.^[16] The potential costs associated with possible environmental clean-up processes, loss of land value and human and animal health concerns are undetermined. A 2010 EPA study discovered contaminants in drinking water including: arsenic, copper, vanadium, and adamantanes adjacent to drilling operations. The EPA said a broad range of sources are being investigated, including agricultural activity, but noted gas drilling as a potential cause.^[17] EPA administrator Lisa Jackson recently told Congress that there have been no "proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water." ^[18] New technological advances continue to be developed and appropriate state regulations are working to ensure the process is safely implemented.^[19]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing}

[Dave]

Holy Fracking Fluid Batman  ??? ... what a thread!

I've been offline for a few weeks with a laptop that had 3-legs in the air.  Today I purchased a new one.  So glad I did... I get to 'catch up' with what's been going on here.

Looks like this is a 'hot' topic, and rightfully so - too many rural homeowners in PA can light water straight from their kitchen faucet because large quantities of gas have 'fracked' into the aquifers.  I bet Wally World loves it... they probably have a hard time keeping bottled water on their shelves. 

I know from my perspective... I don't want any fracking going on anywhere near me - those underground aquifers travel for miles!

Muzzy I agree but some on this site believe hydro fracking never contaminated any thing. Check this out.

Quote from: nyantler on July 29, 2011, 02:37:53 pmIf you check...there has not been a single proven case where hydrofracking has contaminated a water supply, well or ground area.

And there has yet to be a proven case.. I didn't say it hasn't happened or I don't believe it happens... I said that there is no proven case... just alleged cases... if you want to state the facts.. that is the fact... not my opinion.

Environmental and human health concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing include the contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, and the potential mishandling of waste.^[16] The potential costs associated with possible environmental clean-up processes, loss of land value and human and animal health concerns are undetermined. A 2010 EPA study discovered contaminants in drinking water including: arsenic, copper, vanadium, and adamantanes adjacent to drilling operations. The EPA said a broad range of sources are being investigated, including agricultural activity, but noted gas drilling as a potential cause.^[17] EPA administrator Lisa Jackson recently told Congress that there have been no "proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water." ^[18] New technological advances continue to be developed and appropriate state regulations are working to ensure the process is safely implemented.^[19]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing}

Joe, now that we are best buds and you are going to buy me lunch, you have to admit that hydro fracking had something to do with the contaminated wells in Pa. Your study was in 2010 these results were from 2011 . Why would they pay  million dollar fines if they weren't responsible. Just my humble opinion

Dave

[nyantler]

Like I said Dave.. I'm not saying I don't agree with your position... I do... I was just stating what the fact is... until it is a proven fact that hydrofracturing caused the well contamination... it is still open for debate... but yes I am of the OPINION that chemical hydrofracking is environmentally dangerous in some cases... and needs to be examined further... but I also think it is no less dangerous than drilling for oil or storing nucleur waste if regulated properly.

[MuzzyLoader]

Recent article in the Elmira Star-Gazette:

http://www.stargazette.com/article/20110801/NEWS01/108010330/Hydrofracking-comment-period-start-late-summer-DEC-says?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[nyantler]

Good read.. thanks Muzzy

[Dave]

Recent article in the Elmira Star-Gazette:

http://www.stargazette.com/article/20110801/NEWS01/108010330/Hydrofracking-comment-period-start-late-summer-DEC-says?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

At least it holds off on the drilling and permits to drill till some time next year. Hope they extend it even longer. I don't think NYS has the right people to monitor this type of activity or the money to hire the right people.

Dave

[wdswtr]

I listened to an interview a few weeks back on the radio with Cuomo as the guest.  He was asked if he was opposed or for hydro fracking.  He did not clearly say no he wasnt but boasted the economic gains for NY if he signs when it crosses his desk.  He sounded like he would sign.  He was asked why he was considering it even though he opposed it in NYC.  He said there was not enough information at that time to determine if it was safe so he was not ready to sign.  He said that since then there has been zero evidence that it is not a safe if done properly and there has been no confirmed claims in PA that have led to believe it has caused any enviormental issues.  Now dont shoot me all to heck Im just the messenger.

[Doc]

I don't know why they always use that qualifier, "if done properly". We all know that there will be a certain number of cases where it is not done properly. The more wells, the larger the odds of environmental disaster and the greater the odds for some landowner having his land value plummet to zero.

The criteria should include, "what are the consequences for innocent bystanders now and in the future if it is not done properly". Or, "is it possible to make the process fool-proof so it is safe even when government regulations fail to control the process". Or "Let's first discuss how we are going to guarantee that this process will happen properly before approving anything".

Instead we are dealing with an attitude of "Let's cross our fingers and hope that all is well, and if an occasional accident should happen ....... oh well .... too bad for the neighborhood. :  They really take that saying quite seriously: "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" .... lol.

[Dave]

I don't know why they always use that qualifier, "if done properly". We all know that there will be a certain number of cases where it is not done properly. The more wells, the larger the odds of environmental disaster and the greater the odds for some landowner having his land value plummet to zero.

The criteria should include, "what are the consequences for innocent bystanders now and in the future if it is not done properly". Or, "is it possible to make the process fool-proof so it is safe even when government regulations fail to control the process". Or "Let's first discuss how we are going to guarantee that this process will happen properly before approving anything".

Instead we are dealing with an attitude of "Let's cross our fingers and hope that all is well, and if an occasional accident should happen ....... oh well .... too bad for the neighborhood. :  They really take that saying quite seriously: "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" .... lol.

Doc, very well put in a nut shell.

Dave

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I don't know why they always use that qualifier, "if done properly". We all know that there will be a certain number of cases where it is not done properly. The more wells, the larger the odds of environmental disaster and the greater the odds for some landowner having his land value plummet to zero.

The criteria should include, "what are the consequences for innocent bystanders now and in the future if it is not done properly". Or, "is it possible to make the process fool-proof so it is safe even when government regulations fail to control the process". Or "Let's first discuss how we are going to guarantee that this process will happen properly before approving anything".

Instead we are dealing with an attitude of "Let's cross our fingers and hope that all is well, and if an occasional accident should happen ....... oh well .... too bad for the neighborhood. :  They really take that saying quite seriously: "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" .... lol.

[/quote

I am mixed on this topic but I can't help but think that all of our cost effective energy would be shut down if put against the measuring sticks that are being used on this fracking. Are we taking the position of not in NY State because we live here yet feel the drilling in other areas of the counrty or world is ok because that can not impact us? I want the cheapest energy possible....I am just not sure I can justify the possible costs.

[Doc]

I am mixed on this topic but I can't help but think that all of our cost effective energy would be shut down if put against the measuring sticks that are being used on this fracking. Are we taking the position of not in NY State because we live here yet feel the drilling in other areas of the counrty or world is ok because that can not impact us? I want the cheapest energy possible....I am just not sure I can justify the possible costs.

Culver-

I am just putting myself in the shoes of a landowner who has just been told that he and his family have been drinking a diet of carcinogens, or who has been told that his water supply is contaminated and that his land is now worthless because it's now toxic. Or maybe the guy whose glass of drinking water accidentally catches fire .... lol. Why am I looking at it from that standpoint? Because I or someone I know could be that landowner. Of course I'm concerned. And when the cash begins to over-rule the rights of a person to pure water, or the expectation that the government should be concerned about environmental experimentation, I begin to wonder if our values may not be a bit upside-down. How much cash, corporate profits and economic prosperity does access to pure water cost?

[First-light]

I know one thing for sure, there will be lawsuit after lawsuit pointed in every direction when NY gives the go ahead. The lawyers will be the big winners in NY!!!lol

Here is a letter to the town of Dryden from a landowner coalition.

DSEC letter to Dryden Town Board: policy considerations and a legal warning

Dryden Safe Energy Coalition (DSEC)

c/o Henry S. Kramer

[email protected]

August 1, 2011

Dryden Town Supervisor

Members, Town Board

By E-Mail and hand delivery to Town Clerk

As it appears that the Dryden Town Board will be voting on a complete energy development ban on August 2, 2011, this to present DSEC’s position, to amplify Henry Kramer’s prior statement, and to put the Board on formal notice that if it passes a total energy development ban it will be engaging in knowing prospective violations of constitutional rights, federal, and state law.

If the Board enacts the proposed ordinance it may subject the Town not only to litigation costs but also to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of taking liability, which would ultimately have to be borne by the taxpayers.  The Board should not take lightly the risk of such potential liability.

Whether or not the Board believes it may somehow legally prevail, the Board should weigh the cost to benefit ratio of adopting this ban.  Even assuming, for argument only, that the possibility of success were 50-50, can the Board risk the chance of a nine figure liability?  Not reasonably.

First, the ban would violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and constitute a taking requiring just compensation.  The ban entirely confiscates mineral rights to an estimated value of $175 million (valuations may vary, but the significance of the sum involved remains), not including the additional value of royalty rights also likely in the many millions and the costs of litigation.  Alternatively, the Board’s action may be viewed as a 100% confiscatory tax on wealth in mineral rights, a tax outside the Board’s powers, not authorized by and preempted by state law.  Board members have fiduciary responsibilities.  Given the magnitude of potential damages and the outsized legal risks, it is simply not fiscally prudent behavior to adopt this ban.

Second, the ban would be in violation of the state’s preemption of the regulation of drilling.  In the May Dryden newsletter, the Town Supervisor so acknowledged.  Legal authorities give ban ordinances little chance of surviving court challenge.  The wiser course, when faced with legal doubt, is not to act.

Third, the ban as a zoning ordinance is in violation of many of the holdings of the New York Court of Appeals in the Udell zoning case, a copy of which was previously supplied the Board.  Read the case and it should guide the Board.

Fourth, the ban is ultra vires, that is outside the authority of a town board.  There is no authorization in state law for the Town to enact a complete ban, on the contrary Town action is preempted.  An Article 78 proceeding may follow.

Fifth, a Town may not, by local ordinance, nullify, or make entirely nugatory, state created and recognized mineral rights and general laws.  To do so would, in effect, nullify state law and state created rights within Dryden.  If towns could do this, they could pick and choose which state laws would apply.

Sixth, section 5 of the proposed ban which would have the Dryden ban trump state and federal permits and actions, as a matter of black letter law, is invalid.  It is reasonable to conclude that the Town Board will be knowingly attempting to override and destroy constitutional, federal, and state rights.

Seventh, the ban is discriminatory.  It shifts the entire alleged environmental protection costs onto land and mineral rights holders instead of the general population.  This is not an incidental shift but an overwhelming burden, extinguishing millions of dollars of thousands of individuals’ property rights.  If such an action is taken, it must be a general charge on the population of the Town.  The survey on which our comprehensive plan is built calls for compensation for takings.  Further, such compensation was provided when the Town bought development rights, recognition of the injustice of unpaid taking.

Eighth, adoption of this ban would cloud the land titles of thousands of Dryden residents who have signed leases on 41% of Dryden land.  A ban is a classic force event and may prevent these leases from ever expiring.  A ban could thus condemn many Dryden residents to land sale and mortgage difficulties for years to come, a harsh and selective punishment.

Ninth, the Town may not be insured for any act it takes which it knows, or reasonably should know, is illegal.  The Town is notified it will be in violation of constitutional and legal rights if it enacts the ban.

Tenth, if Town Board members, having notice, violate constitutional and legal rights, they may lose their qualified immunity and be subject to suit in their personal (possibly uninsured) capacities.

In conclusion, the Town should affirmatively anticipate that federal and/or state court action against it is highly probably, if not virtually certain, on one or more of the above cited or other claims.  You cannot extinguish hundreds of millions of dollars of property values held by thousands of residents and separate mineral rights held by both in and out of state people without anticipating legal actions.  The energy industry has its own causes of action and may also sue.

It is highly probable that this overly broad ban, as written, will have unforeseen or unintended consequences.  For similar reason, the County Legislature deferred action on a road law.

The more sensible alternative and responsible fiduciary response is to defer any action on a ban until ban challenges elsewhere are litigated.  Certainly, the State is far from ready to begin permitting wells, so there is no need for haste.  You have at a minimum into 2012, if not longer.

The Town should take notice that a ban is inconsistent with environmental advocates’ position favoring the development of natural gas under the Kyoto protocols.  It is also inconsistent for the Town and individuals to use energy from elsewhere while refusing to allow its regulated development locally.  And, failure to develop domestic energy means foreign energy dependence, foreign wars to protect vital energy interests, and the sapping of revenues the government could use to pay debt and provide programs.

DSEC’s mission is to offer balanced, data driven information on safe energy development, to logically and numerically evaluate benefit-to-risk ratios, free of emotional bias or ideology, and to bring together people interested in an analytical approach to energy issues.  A ban does not serve to meet this mission.  It does not allow for a “middle way” in which there is lawful, safe, regulated energy development.  Legally, we believe a total ban is an unnecessary high risk strategy for the Town and which in its uncompensated takings is unjust.

The Board is now on notice.  It is DSEC’s hope the Board will do the prudent thing and recognize there is both division of opinion in Dryden and significant large scale dollar risk.  Both drilling without regulation and refusal to drill are equally extreme solutions.  We oppose both.  Please opt for deliberate moderation and do not adopt in haste this radical total ban.

Sincerely yours,

Dryden Safe Energy Coalition

By Henry S. Kramer, Tracy Marisa

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I understand Doc. That is where I am at as well. I almost would have no compasion for the landowner that took the money and had something happen to their land. After all they should have evaluated that into their agreed pricing. The ones I feel sorry for are the neighbors of the owners that entered into an agreement and received no compansation for the liability they face....or worse the possibleruining of their property.

Then I feel a buit hypocritical when I comment that the other areas of the country should be opened to oil drilling. Alaska...Gulf Coast....Pacific Coast. I wan't us to be able to tap our oil reserves.....but you know ...I don't live there. I don't think I would want someone in Texas telling me I should let a drill rig in my back yard.....ot out in the middle of Lake Ontario....

I am very conflicted on this whole debate. I also am not buying that is is such a risky endevor that is just plagued with evil....Or that it is super de dup-er safe. I am sure the truth and posibilities are , as usual, somewhere in the middle.

[Doc]

Then I feel a buit hypocritical when I comment that the other areas of the country should be opened to oil drilling. Alaska...Gulf Coast....Pacific Coast. I wan't us to be able to tap our oil reserves.....but you know ...I don't live there. I don't think I would want someone in Texas telling me I should let a drill rig in my back yard.....ot out in the middle of Lake Ontario....

I am speaking way beyond my actual knowledge now, but it sounds like a big difference between hydro-fracking and conventional oil well drilling involves some of the nasty concoctions that they use in the hydro-fracking process. Gas mining is no longer a case of "drill until you locate something to pump" like it used to be, or like oil drilling. It sounds like some of this soup that they are injecting into the well is a bit like playing with fire in the fact that mistakes appear to beuncompromising in terms of permanent pollution. And then there is the fact that the underground structure is not only simply having a hole poked into it, but is being smashed area-wide around the well location. I think I can well imagine how that might have a tendency to mix gas and water.

Anyway, I don't think there is a valid comparison in potential damage between oil drilling (and old methods of gas drilling) and this new process. That thought may come from just plain ignorance of the details of these processes, or perhaps a real assessment of how they can impact our lives and the lives of those that come after us. Of course when we consider the dangers of off-shore oil drilling, we have recently seen the havoc that mistakes in that process can cause. But that just points up the fact that no matter how much regulation and oversight that we supply, mistakes resulting in environmental catastrophes still happen. Perhaps that just serves as another warning that we should be heeding.

[Dave]

The drilling Called Hydro Fracking is much different than the old vertical method.  This new process involved drilling down several thousand feet and then like a wheel with spokes branches out in all directions  360 degrees horizontally.  They use water pressure, sand and chemicals to fracture the geological formation which has gas trapped in it. They are not drilling down to some cavern filled with methane, the gas is in the rock formation itself.

Once the gas is released it makes its way to the surface to a well head casing that will be capped to prevent gas from escaping . The big problem that I see is that once the geological formation is drilled down several thousand feet all the rock formations down to that point are  damaged (CRACKED ) . So now the released gas has other ways to make it to the surface without using the well head piping.

Methane is a lighter than air gas so it will rise and vent through the soil and find the path of least resistance. This is how the gas migrates to homes, underground aquifers, and private wells supplying water to land owners. Point being the gas doesn't always go where you want it to go. So not only will you have a release of methane you also have the back wash of the millions of gallons of water laced with fracking fluid that can also migrate through the underground cracks and fissors. This is how the land and water get contaminated.

Dave

[nyantler]

The drilling Called Hydro Fracking is much different than the old vertical method.  This new process involved drilling down several thousand feet and then like a wheel with spokes branches out in all directions  360 degrees horizontally.  They use water pressure, sand and chemicals to fracture the geological formation which has gas trapped in it. They are not drilling down to some cavern filled with methane, the gas is in the rock formation itself.

Once the gas is released it makes its way to the surface to a well head casing that will be capped to prevent gas from escaping . The big problem that I see is that once the geological formation is drilled down several thousand feet all the rock formations down to that point are  damaged (CRACKED ) . So now the released gas has other ways to make it to the surface without using the well head piping.

Methane is a lighter than air gas so it will rise and vent through the soil and find the path of least resistance. This is how the gas migrates to homes, underground aquifers, and private wells supplying water to land owners. Point being the gas doesn't always go where you want it to go. So not only will you have a release of methane you also have the back wash of the millions of gallons of water laced with fracking fluid that can also migrate through the underground cracks and fissors. This is how the land and water get contaminated.

Dave

Why Dave.. you did your homework on that one.. good post... I think their want to get as much volume as possible from the area is probably the reason for the overfracturing of the ground... I wonder if they could do it safely with just water to a point where the cracks are only expanded enough to gain a bit more volume than is aquired by simply drilling?.. maybe their greed and wanting to extract every last bit of gas could be why the fracturing fluid is used.. Makes no sense to me to use a dangerous chemical anywhere that can contaminate the earth... let alone peoples wells and drinking water.

[Dave]

The drilling Called Hydro Fracking is much different than the old vertical method.  This new process involved drilling down several thousand feet and then like a wheel with spokes branches out in all directions  360 degrees horizontally.  They use water pressure, sand and chemicals to fracture the geological formation which has gas trapped in it. They are not drilling down to some cavern filled with methane, the gas is in the rock formation itself.

Once the gas is released it makes its way to the surface to a well head casing that will be capped to prevent gas from escaping . The big problem that I see is that once the geological formation is drilled down several thousand feet all the rock formations down to that point are  damaged (CRACKED ) . So now the released gas has other ways to make it to the surface without using the well head piping.

Methane is a lighter than air gas so it will rise and vent through the soil and find the path of least resistance. This is how the gas migrates to homes, underground aquifers, and private wells supplying water to land owners. Point being the gas doesn't always go where you want it to go. So not only will you have a release of methane you also have the back wash of the millions of gallons of water laced with fracking fluid that can also migrate through the underground cracks and fissors. This is how the land and water get contaminated.

Dave

Why Dave.. you did your homework on that one.. good post... I think their want to get as much volume as possible from the area is probably the reason for the overfracturing of the ground... I wonder if they could do it safely with just water to a point where the cracks are only expanded enough to gain a bit more volume than is aquired by simply drilling?.. maybe their greed and wanting to extract every last bit of gas could be why the fracturing fluid is used.. Makes no sense to me to use a dangerous chemical anywhere that can contaminate the earth... let alone peoples wells and drinking water.

Joe, I am for clean air, water hate noise pollution. And I love hunting and I think this Gas Drilling will affect our quality of life.  I think I can say that you are passionate about the same things, just hate to see it ruined just so some people can make money.  I said this before, there is only so much land and they ain't  making any more, protect what you have. Law makers can't say if done safely, or if done correctly there is no problems. There are no IF's it must be done safely with minimal impact on the environment and the people who live there.

Also remember that Christy Whitman Was in charge or the EPA on 9-11 and said that the air was safe breathe now we know differently and now the EPA tells us that Hydro Fracking is safe. I have to say I don't believe a dam thing they say.  Something to think about, who do you trust?

Dave

[MuzzyLoader]

Another article..

http://www.stargazette.com/article/20110803/NEWS01/110803019/Feds-seek-dismiss-NY-fracking-lawsuit-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

There are comments to click on too regarding this article.

[Doc]

Another article..

http://www.stargazette.com/article/20110803/NEWS01/110803019/Feds-seek-dismiss-NY-fracking-lawsuit-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

There are comments to click on too regarding this article.

So don't be looking to the courts for any recourse.

[growalot]

I admitt I haven't read through all this but I'm sure one or two of you have...so questions

1. seeing they go down  several thousand  feet  then out...what does that do to ppls mineral rights?...I mean say they get to a neighbors first and they signed...then the initial well head is on them ...but the gas drilling and fracturing is under you

2. Isn't it places with high shale also the places with high radon?...I know ours is....what is the fracturing going to do in aiding the further release of radon into neighboring homes

3. does this have the same type of potential as the Retsolf salt mine debacle?...yes not huge caverns collapsing ...but it is displacing the natural  under ground structure....ground movement and the changing of water flow

4. whats the damages to surrounding areas if you have a explosion or well burn?

[Dave]

I admitt I haven't read through all this but I'm sure one or two of you have...so questions

1. seeing they go down  several thousand  feet  then out...what does that do to ppls mineral rights?...I mean say they get to a neighbors first and they signed...then the initial well head is on them ...but the gas drilling and fracturing is under you

2. Isn't it places with high shale also the places with high radon?...I know ours is....what is the fracturing going to do in aiding the further release of radon into neighboring homes

3. does this have the same type of potential as the Retsolf salt mine debacle?...yes not huge caverns collapsing ...but it is displacing the natural  under ground structure....ground movement and the changing of water flow

4. whats the damages to surrounding areas if you have a explosion or well burn?

To answer your first question. The way it was explained to me by a landsman from the gas company.

First they try to get a block of 640 acres this would be a combination of the land around the area they want to drill. So most likely this would be many parcels of land with many different owners. Those who sign a lease get paid a price per acres for example if you have a 100 acres and sign for $1000 you would get $100,000 and so would every one in the 640 block get paid for what  dollar amount they have signed for per acre. Now if the well is a producing everyone in the block will receive royalties from the well. But if they extract gas from under your land and you didn't sign a lease you only get part of the royalties no up front money.

I can't speak on the radon issue but I can tell you that the fracking fluid that has to be disposed of had been tested and is radio active.  It and should be treated as hazardous waste but the gas companies are fighting this request. Remember that it takes millions of gallons of water to drill just one well and all this back wash has to be disposed of safely, IMHO this would mean treating all this before releasing it back to the rivers.

Damage and explosions are not common but they do happen. Check for articles in Pennsylvania they have addressed these issues already.Plus  Contaminated wells, chemical spills, fires etc.

Dave

[nyantler]

Another article..

http://www.stargazette.com/article/20110803/NEWS01/110803019/Feds-seek-dismiss-NY-fracking-lawsuit-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

There are comments to click on too regarding this article.

Kinda proves the point that nobody truly owns anything if the government says you don't...

[Dave]

Everyone needs to remember the saying " the one with the most money wins". My aunt was talking with a bigwig from the gas company in PA about Hydrofracking in NY. He told her it WILL happen, its just a matter of "when". He also told her that for drilling rights on her 155 acres she's looking at about 600K per year! Who's gonna pass up that kind of money? The gas companies dont care if they contaminate anything. They will just pay a fine, which is squat compared to the money they are making off these wells and continue about their business. And dont even think for a minute that the politicians aren't getting their palms greased by the gas companies!

I think the payment plan is different than your aunt was told. First you are paid so much per acre and that is usually for a ten year lease. But that is a one time payment, not per year. The additional money comes in royalties if you have a producing well. There are landsmen around offering $550 per acre for only 3 years. This information from the landsmen who work for the gas drilling companies. Usually a drilling block would be 640 acres so if your aunt signed she would split the royalties with the other land owners in the block.

Dave