Marcellus Shale -- please keep this thread non-political

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep the politics out of this thread. state facts with data sources to support the statement. no unsupported opinions please. and no arguing!

through a family inheritance, i own a very skinny slice of mineral rights in some land above the Marcellus Shale. my great-grandparents leased the mineral rights to a natural gas company back in the sixties. i live about 300 miles from there.

now, a natural gas company working in that area has asked me to ratify an extension to the original lease, which would allow them to "pool" neighboring land into a chunk big enough to do some horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing of the shale to extract the natural gas therein.

ever the skeptic, i have not signed because i don't think i've done enough research on these methods of production. i'm not a 100% NIMBY person. i look at each individual issue and decide whether or not it's OK IMBY. and this is where you, dear GRM'ers, come in. if you are a resident of an area that is being scoped out and/or developed for these methods of natural gas extraction, i'd like to know what you've seen in your area due to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracture: job creation, ground water pollution, etc. just like i don't want a waste dump in my own backyard, i will also not vote to put a waste dump in your backyard either.

please support statements with references.

thanks a lot. i respect this forum and the forum members, and i wouldn't ask for your input if i didn't consider it to be valuable. let's keep it clean and avoid the name-calling..

I've got a couple of those wells. Not all that lucrative because as the price of gas goes up or down your share goes up or down. There's not really a way to track their production out of your area and so you are left at the mercy of their bookkeeping so get as much as you can up front.

I have a gas well not much over 1/4 mile from my house. I've checked my water every year with no increase in anything. Noise isn't an issue nor is smell.

The county as done a couple of tests of the air with no adverse issues there either.

I've read the stories and don't find any of them seem to be affecting me.

I'm on my phone posting from bed ATM, but if you want more detail feel free to email via the board as I am in the industry and interact with folks from almost all of the large companies working the Marcellus and other shale plays. but basically there have been zero cases of groundwater contamination due to hydro fracing. That happens at thousands of feet, te water table is tens to hundreds at most. usgs even published a report detains their groundwater contamination investigations. The clips of people lighting the kitchen sink are from a different source unrelated to the gas production.

This seems to be a pretty objective review of the topic:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide-1

One comment that I have heard (and could not find a reference for) is that fracking has been used in oil drilling for a long time. You might look into that.

To add a support note to what was mentioned above: The above linked article notes that the flammable tap water that has been seen was the result of drilling a water well into a natural gas pocket.

In reply to aircooled:

That is true that hydraulic fracing has been in use since the 50s, but horizontal drilling is new tech, as is the way fracking is done now.

Re: flaming water, that is basically what I heard as well, but the gas is not sourced the same, it is biogenic, meaning it's produced from growing bacteria or something in the subsurface

i say get what you can out of it- the neighbors are going to sign off and get paid, so you might as well, too.

This is a tough one. Obviously, you'd like to make some money on the land (and there's nothing wrong with that), but you want to protect it environmentally as much as you can.

I heat my house with natural gas and consider it a more "green" fuel than other processes (electric or oil). But I have also wondered about the sourcing issues. A close relative of mine has a graduate degree in hydro-geology. After working around fracking sites for several years he believes it's still sort of a toss up due to the variability each local site. Some areas have no problems whereas other sites have water quality issues. He's not particularly a "greenie" but also, does not work directly for the oil industry.

The only other thing I can add is that I was in Watkins Glen last weekend for a vintage race. There are hundreds of anti-fracking signs in that area. Clearly, many of the locals are opposed. There are about 50 wineries around the Seneca Lake area, and it appears that most of them are opposed to fracking as well. As I understand it, the concern is less about gas in the drinking water and more about disposal of the chemically contaminated water that is used in the process.

I'm certain the oil companies will say it's safe and can back that up with studies. I noticed some signs for an organization called Shaleshock in the area. It looks like they can provide some counter-point to the oil companies.
Good luck, however you decide.

I think one day in the not-too-distant future we will look back in wonder at the damage done by fracking. Another sad example of the rape of the land by large corporations.

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=254646.0

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ohio-earthquake-likely-caused-by-fracking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing

Uncharacteristic for me I know, but I side firmly with the environmental whackos on this one.

See if you can find out how deep they're drilling and make sure it's deeper than the water table. If so, then you don't really have to worry about groundwater contamination. You really want to avoid any chance of it because what's in the fracking solution is kept secret.

Do think carefully about what you read because there's a lot of propaganda out there from both enviro-wacko groups and the NG industry.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

the marcellus is fairly deep, starting around 5,000 feet and going down to around 12,000 for the deepest wells. the water table on the other hand would be a few hundred at most. The cases where groundwater contamination has been caused by oil or gas production was due to bad casing, or poor maintenance of a well, allowing oil or gas, or brine from the reservoir to migrate up the outside of the casing into shallower depths. most of these occurences happened over 50 years ago.

as for the earthquakes in ohio, that is not from fracking itself, but from disposal of the wastewater. there is no doubt that hydraulic fracturing causes earthquakes, because that is the purpose, and that is how some companies map out the extent of subsurface fracturing, by measuring microseismic events during the process. all hydrocarbon production produces some water, but there is a lot used in fracking. it is because once the water goes down the hole, it cannot just be dumped out on the ground or down the sewer, it all has to be put back into the ground somewhere that it won't contaminate groundwater aquifers.

the USGS has a summary of groundwater reports related to hydraulic fracturing. http://water.usgs.gov/coop/products/energy/shale.cwp.summary.pdf

one thing though: do you know if the original leaseholder ever drilled and produced from your land? if not, the lease may have expired, meaning you negotiate again and start over. if it was produced, did the original lease not cover what they are wanting to do now? some older leases were only done to certain depths or within a range of depths. if they need something from you, remember, everything is on the table, and they can and will pay for everything they want you to do. when they did the seismic survey in the barnett, they paid my grandfather 50 bucks just to run the cables through the ditch in front of the house. he was ecstatic, "i didn't even know i owned the ditch, and they paid me 50 bucks!" it sounds like you have subsurface rights, but the surface rights (the land) has long been sold, is that correct?

GameboyRMH wrote: See if you can find out how deep they're drilling and make sure it's deeper than the water table. If so, then you don't really have to worry about groundwater contamination.

Fracking is "the propagation of fractures in a rock layer, as a result of the action of a pressurized fluid." Regardless of the depth at which such fractures are originated, how can you say with any certainty that neither the fluids nor the released gas is going to end up in groundwater?

At every join of the pipe there's the danger of a leak when you put the fluid under the pressure needed to frac. Would it be a lot? No, but it will leak.

The real issue is that when they frac they have their own little formula that they say works the best and some companies have been known to dispose of illegal substances.

1988RedT2 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: See if you can find out how deep they're drilling and make sure it's deeper than the water table. If so, then you don't really have to worry about groundwater contamination.

Fracking is "the propagation of fractures in a rock layer, as a result of the action of a pressurized fluid." Regardless of the depth at which such fractures are originated, how can you say with any certainty that neither the fluids nor the released gas is going to end up in groundwater?

You can't be 100% certain but it's highly unlikely with a substantial depth difference. I'm trying to stick to facts even though I personally don't like the idea of pumping the ground full of mystery sauce for the purpose of extracting fossil fuels.

carguy123 wrote: At every join of the pipe there's the danger of a leak when you put the fluid under the pressure needed to frac. Would it be a lot? No, but it will leak.

the casing is all cement and steel, the drillers set casing every x feet depending on what they are drilling through and what they expect based on the geologist's prognosis.

carguy123 wrote: The real issue is that when they frac they have their own little formula that they say works the best and some companies have been known to dispose of illegal substances.

at least in texas, that is not true. http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/31/3701938/drillers-must-now-disclose-fracking.html

and to say that you heard from a guy that knows a guy that once heard that they dump illegal substances down the wells is misleading, at best.

everything that goes down the hole has to be accounted for, any foreign object that falls down the hole has to be recovered, which is why there is big money in "fishing". wireline tools, pens, parts, whatever has to come back out.

My family owns some land where they do this nearby. Our biggest and only issue was they used so much water in the first year that they lowered the water table and our well went dry. This was 4 or so years ago and it hasnt happened since.

If they're being honest and want to pool your land so they can put together a big enough piece to run a lateral, I think you'd be silly not to sign on. You not pooling almost certainly won't prevent a well from being drilled, it will just force the company to work around you. It's not going to change the environmental impact in the area. It's not going to change the total production, all it's really going to affect is whether or not you get paid. The gas is there and it's being drilled for. Now, if you had a large acerage position, then my advice might be different, but it sounds like you don't. As a small holder there's nothing much you can do to change what's happening. All you can decide is whether or not you want to collect money. If you are really bothered by it then you can always take the money that you get paid and use it in political advocacy to help stop what's going on.
I'm not a geologist (anymore) but I do sleep with one and have been woken up with calls from the rig more times than I can remember. Drilling long laterals pays my bills, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

I grew up in an area where a LOT of drilling has already taken place, and where it is still taking place. At first, prices paid for mineral rights were astronomical, now that the market has become saturated, so to speak, prices are no longer out of this world.

Even if there was no problem with groundwater contamination, as a previous poster pointed out, this method uses a heck of a lot of water, and it contaminates a heck of a lot of water. As a consequence, truck traffic to and from well sites increases drastically...but if you don't live there, I guess you really could care less about the traffic or waste water issues.

Finally, while I have no source that backs up this claim, during the Bush 43 reign, President Cheney got a law passed that the formulation of the fluids used in fracking is protected property. In other words, if and when any attempt is ever made to link fracking with an increase in any kind of illness or death....the oil / gas companies can NOT be compelled to disclose what ingredients are in the fluids used in fracking. Think of it as being similar to the tobacco companies NEVER being forced to admit what might be in cigarettes or the resultant smoke, and no having the federal government being able to reproduce the "formula" for cigarettes.

Fracking will give your wallet a boost, but I can't help but think that at some point they will discover it wasn't enviromentally sound. (Sorry, that's just my distrust of big business showing.)

The above is opinion (except for the truck traffic) not fact, so no stats to cite.

Actually, this is very much a fact:

integraguy wrote: Finally, while I have no source that backs up this claim, during the Bush 43 reign, President Cheney got a law passed that the formulation of the fluids used in fracking is protected property. In other words, if and when any attempt is ever made to link fracking with an increase in any kind of illness or death....the oil / gas companies can NOT be compelled to disclose what ingredients are in the fluids used in fracking. Think of it as being similar to the tobacco companies NEVER being forced to admit what might be in cigarettes or the resultant smoke, and no having the federal government being able to reproduce the "formula" for cigarettes.

"Q: Are there federal laws or restrictions that address the environmental impact of fracking? A: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), originally enacted in 1974 and subsequently amended in 1986 and 1994, is the main federal law passed by Congress to ensure drinking water is free from both natural and man-made contaminates. This act authorizes the federal Environmental Protection Agency to set national health-based standards for drinking water. One of its primary purposes is to make sure groundwater is not polluted.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (also known as the Bush/Cheney Energy Act) exempted natural gas drilling from the restrictions and standards in the Safe Drinking Water Act. This Energy Policy Act also excused companies using hydraulic fracturing from being forced to disclose the specific makeup or combination of chemicals used in fracking.

The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness to Chemical Act (FRAC Act) was introduced on June 9, 2009 in order to repeal these exceptions in the Energy Policy Act. The FRAC Act never became law, however, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 remains in effect."

From: https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-716.aspx

No connection with the shale drilling, so I can't say anything about the profits or issues. What I can say is that it has had a HUGE economic impact in this area. I have seen many, many ways that people have benefitted from the drilling and many people working because of it. I have not heard or seen of any negative environmental impact. Not yet anyhow.

"Educated" Canoe.......

Not sure if canoe?

I thought Marcellus Shale was an NFL lineman from the '80s who retired and did some acting in the '90s, anyway.

It's not exactly a canoe, maybe it's a kayak? What they're paddling is not obvious.

I'm goin' with "Astroturf" Canoe, brought up from a google search, no doubt. Maybe instead of fracking, we should be using GLUE TRAPS to CATCH MICE. Yeah, more GLUE TRAPS to get those suckers.

Yeh, I'm fairly sure that jmilberger=driller's proxy canoe

Dr. Hess wrote: I'm goin' with "Astroturf" Canoe, brought up from a google search, no doubt.

Agreed,