Gas Drilling
#101
Posted 28 May 2008 - 02:25 PM
#102
Posted 31 May 2008 - 11:11 AM
A. Go someplace else to drill
B. Bring in lawyers to sue the city
C. Send in Tommy Lee Jones to shoot up the city
Southlake isn't getting behind the Barnett Shale the way it should. They must not be watching TV.
From todays S-T,
http://www.star-tele...ory/673277.html
#103
Posted 31 May 2008 - 01:29 PM
I wonder when Chesapeake will start mailing out those "special" TV headsets used for "normal listening" when their infomercials air.
www.iheartfw.com
#104
Posted 01 June 2008 - 06:58 PM
Hey, David, pour some on the rocks and have a drink! Sorry you won't live to see the results.
IT IS NOT WATER! It is a chemical stew the contents of which the drilling companies will not disclose. But they aren't filling their swimming pools with it...
#105
Posted 01 June 2008 - 08:32 PM
Hey, David, pour some on the rocks and have a drink! Sorry you won't live to see the results.
IT IS NOT WATER! It is a chemical stew the contents of which the drilling companies will not disclose. But they aren't filling their swimming pools with it...
Precisely. There have been instances where the "salt water" used in the fracing process has *caught fire.* That is not water, no matter what the drilling companies, the city, or the S-T want you to think.
--
Kara B.
#106
Posted 01 June 2008 - 08:42 PM
#107
Posted 02 June 2008 - 07:54 PM
Frac fluid is an engineered product. It is designed to have a high viscosity to carry proppants into the well with a maximized ability to float the material into the cracks in the rock. Then, when the frac fluid is being recovered, viscosity needs to be low to enhance the flow back to the surface.
What I described requires chemical transformation from a product high in polymer content to one in which the polymer chains have been cut. The methods are proprietary so we don't have the details of content. But it ain't water, doc.
#108
Posted 02 June 2008 - 08:20 PM
-- thus saith the Wiki
I know, but it's the only reference I could find.
Personally I think you're all lying, but that's probably because I'm in one of those moods.
#109
Posted 02 June 2008 - 09:18 PM
AN
#110
Posted 02 June 2008 - 09:31 PM
The REDSTATE?
For those reading types.
From The RRC of TEXAS
If there is a possibility of health hazards arising from oil/gas drilling or frac or whatever, then those companies particular to getting your gas rights SHOULD provide an annual health checkup to prevent or discover any precursor sideffects known to the industry. Take the physical now PAID BY Chesapeake or whoever and then closely monitor those residents near the rig sites for those health concern claims. Seems sensible.
www.iheartfw.com
#111
Posted 04 June 2008 - 09:03 AM
The description we use is usually something like "a mixture of salt, drilling mud, chemicals used in the fracturing process and crude oil or 'condensate.' "
That's why it catches fire, which we've also reported on.
Mike Lee
Star-Telegram
#112
Posted 04 June 2008 - 02:22 PM
"STOP! And BACK THA BARNETT SHALE, or I will shoot you!"
"I want those mineral rights from every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in this area. And we're not going home until we do!"
^One way to keep THEM out of your yard. ^
"Howdy M'am we're gonna need you to sign right there on that x and right here where this x is. Once you are all done, I'm just gonna need you to a kindly look directly into this red light for me. (WHAAHH BAMMM!) Thank youuu and have a great day."
www.iheartfw.com
#113
Posted 11 June 2008 - 11:27 PM
#114
Posted 17 June 2008 - 05:17 AM
I have heard selling homes next to wells is more difficult (and sometimes impossible) but I don't know if the real estate community has anything other than anecdotal evidence. There's not much to ask about the well because, frankly, nobody is required to tell you the truth about it.
#115
Posted 13 July 2008 - 07:15 PM
Last Sunday's Calgary Herald had an Op-Ed piece from an energy executive about how enlightened the folks in Ft Worth are about gas drilling. Seems they have the same issues up there.
http://www.canada.co...5b-8243d71b731d
In Alberta, the bulk of the subsurface resources are owned by the Crown. Therefore, when deciding how big the government's take should be, our politicians are continually reminded -- on behalf of the public -- that "it's ours."
Stateside, landowners own everything from the surface down, including the mineral rights. Therefore, under the American system, when oil or gas starts producing, "it's mine."
So in Forth Worth, oil companies are greeted with open arms as they go door to door contracting the rights to drill in suburbia.
#116
Posted 01 August 2008 - 08:22 PM
07:36 PM CDT on Friday, August 1, 2008
Associated Press
FORT WORTH, Texas — A 72-year-old widow objecting to a natural gas pipeline bored beneath her front yard now faces condemnation proceedings from Chesapeake Energy.
Unreal. These people have no morals.
#117
Posted 01 August 2008 - 08:39 PM
#118
Posted 01 August 2008 - 09:30 PM
#119
Posted 01 August 2008 - 10:02 PM
http://westandclear....-neighborhoods/
http://westandclear....-well-pipeline/
This is getting unreal.
--
Kara B.
#120
Posted 01 August 2008 - 10:17 PM
#121
Posted 01 August 2008 - 10:52 PM
#122
Posted 02 August 2008 - 07:43 AM
See CREDO Website
#123
Posted 02 August 2008 - 11:24 AM
www.iheartfw.com
#124
Posted 02 August 2008 - 05:41 PM
Such as this upcoming Tuesday evening where people will be calling on the City Council to exercise its rights "...to deny access under city streets in residential districts as authorized by Chapter 111 of the Natural Resources Code. Also, the issue of city regulation of pipelines within (not only) the city limits, but also our extraterritorial jurisdiction as evidenced in Section 121.202 of the Texas Utilities Code."
(quotes from an email from Louis McBee to Kathleen Hicks, used without permission but I don't think Louis will mind)
But c'mon, yer in Texas for gosh sake. Drink lots of water and get out in the heat!
#125
Posted 07 August 2008 - 01:05 PM
On a side note, there was an article in the paper the other day about some community up in Lake Worth that set a record leasing price at $30k per acre with 25.5 royalty. If that's all they got, then I would have to say that my neighborhood did better on both accounts. Does Samuels Avenue get the record title now? Now I just wish they'd get the well in and commence to paying those royalties.
#126
Posted 07 August 2008 - 03:46 PM
A few stories about the rally, one from me and the other from the Weekly's Jeff Prince.
http://fwbusinesspre...lay.php?id=8160
http://fwweekly.com/...sp?jump=208#208
#127
Posted 07 August 2008 - 06:05 PM
To your point, Andy, there were two times indeed when there were about 40 people there. Once before over 200 were there and once after the 200 plus. It was kind of a bell-shaped curve, I think.
By noon most folks were in the air conditioned meeting. But I cannot remember seeing 200 people gather in Fort Worth on a hot summer morning for any other purpose. It was gratifying to know there are so many people concerned about the future of our city. I'm sure as time progresses and the insanity of going forward with no plan is better understood we will see many more awakenings.
I did speak with reporters from AP and the Wall Street Journal but probably didn't say anything pithy enough for publication. I understand the NY Times also had someone there and NPR has already covered us on All Things Considered. The last national press coverage Fort Worth got was...?
#128
Posted 09 August 2008 - 08:50 AM
(Clicking on my A/C to 74)
www.iheartfw.com
#130
Posted 11 August 2008 - 08:25 PM
I did caveat in my previous post that I am not a professional crowd estimator. No affront intended. But it was based on my impressions as I walked to the door, stood outside for awhile just to see the goings on and then returned to my truck. It may have been that many people had already gone inside. At the time I was there, I think 40 to 50 was pretty accurrate. But I can see from the footage that many people were there who I did not see.
I believe in the rights of the peacefully assembled and I have many times attended events to hear who was speaking, to see participatory government and sometimes to support causes I believe in. It was a great effort and it generated some good publicity.
#131
Posted 12 August 2008 - 07:47 AM
What's interesting is the more you dig, the more you uncover undisclosed issues. Individually some are more significant than others but so far we don't have enough information to prioritize them. The citizens are way out front at this point while city leadership isn't directing an adequate effort.
#132
Posted 18 August 2008 - 12:04 AM
http://westandclear....h-jerry-horton/
#133
Posted 18 August 2008 - 01:33 AM
www.iheartfw.com
#134
Posted 18 August 2008 - 04:03 PM
Dave still at
Visit 360texas.com
#135
Posted 18 August 2008 - 05:27 PM
Edited to add: Don't forget to read the comments section after the film, almost as exciting as the video itself. Chesapeake has trolls in the blogosphere! Hide the women and children! LOL
#136
Posted 19 August 2008 - 12:23 AM
I wonder... What Would Barack Do???
$50 that Chesapeake or THE LIKE OF, paid NBC Nightly News to shoot here in FW last year just to promote the idea that FW is full of backwood simpletons who will do anything to get a celebrity like Brian Williams to report here about the Barnett and sign over them leases.
Or to simply buy it hook, line and sinker.
www.iheartfw.com
#137
Posted 19 August 2008 - 11:29 AM
Wow. Very educational on all sides of the issue. The site administrator must have looked up that individual's IP address and Chesapeake Energy server in Oklahoma City popped up. Makes you think twice about what you post online.
#138
Posted 19 August 2008 - 01:12 PM
It didn't even take looking up - Wordpress shows IP information each time a comment is added if you're an admin (of which I am one). Even populates the domain. When I see "Chesapeake-Energy" in somebody's ISP entry, it's a pretty tell-tale sign.
--
Kara B.
#139
Posted 19 August 2008 - 02:09 PM
I'm pretty naive, but I don't see any reason why Jerry Horton would embellish. I wonder what other neighborhoods Chesapeake has its sights on.
I'm going to email Moncrief too.
Voice & Guitars in Big Heaven
Elementary Music Specialist, FWISD
Texas Wesleyan 2015
Shaw-Clarke NA Alumna
#140
Posted 20 August 2008 - 09:32 PM
#141
Posted 21 August 2008 - 10:45 AM
Yes.
#142
Posted 21 August 2008 - 10:47 AM
http://westandclear....h-jerry-horton/
Carter Ave. homeowner settles with pipeline company
BY MIKE LEEmikelee@star-telegram.com
FORT WORTH -- Jerry Horton, one of the West Meadowbrook homeowners fighting a pipeline beneath her front yard on Carter Avenue, settled with the pipeline company this morning, the same day she was to appear in court for a condemnation hearing.
Officials with Texas Midstream Gas Services, a division of Chesapeake Energy, have said the line will be bored beneath the front yards of 44 homes and vacant lots, and that the line will cause little surface disruption.
"All parties are satisfied with the agreement, and Ms. Horton was charming," Chesapeake spokeswoman Jerri Robbins said.
Horton said Thursday that she only agreed to give up the right-of-way for the pipeline after realizing there is almost no legal way to keep the company from building its gathering line beneath her property.
“I am heartbroken,” she said. “I had to sign.”
The settlement guarantees a payment of $15,500, or $150 per linear foot. It also says:
The line will be at least 20-feet deep
There will be no surface accessories, such as vent pipes, on Horton’s property.
Texas Midstream will replace any of Horton’s trees that die within six months.
Horton’s case is unusual because it involved a pipeline right-of-way through her front yard. Her resistance to the pipeline sparked national news coverage. Her case comes as Fort Worth city officials are debating what, if anything, they can do to regulate the expanding web of natural gas pipelines being built in Fort Worth.
There are more than 1,100 natural gas wells either existing or planned in the city limits, and more are expected as companies rush to tap into the Barnett Shale natural gas field.
Texas Midstream, like many companies that build gathering lines for natural gas wells, is considered a utility company under state law and has the same right to condemn property as gas or electric utilities.
At least four homeowners on Carter Avenue in east Fort Worth have still not agreed to allow the line, and there are several other pipelines being developed in the city, including through the Greenway neighborhood on the northside, and through the Westcliff neighborhood just south of Texas Christian University.
#143
Posted 21 August 2008 - 12:46 PM
Thank you Nitixope and Mike Lee for that.
Dave still at
Visit 360texas.com
#144
Posted 22 August 2008 - 07:29 PM
I still have learned no details of the terms, but they won't be lower than $25k/acre bonus and 25% recurring. Apparently Vantage was very amenable to the alliance's demands on environmental/quality-of-life terms. Are they drilling anywhere else in FW right now?
#145
Posted 08 September 2008 - 11:39 AM
They don't drill wells that fast right?
#146
Posted 08 September 2008 - 12:00 PM
#147
Posted 29 December 2008 - 09:47 AM
#148
Posted 29 December 2008 - 01:46 PM
I might have missed something. How is this different from a normal situation where a company needs only acquire a certain acreage, but not 100%, before drilling? I thought it was around 40 acres?
#149
Posted 29 December 2008 - 02:21 PM
I think the shale development has thrown those rules out the window because we are not talking about a big common basin full of oil and gas. The natural gas is entrained in the shale and if you want it, you got to break some rocks to get it loose (ie: frac'ing). To develop as much as the gas as possible, it looks like the Railroad Commission is allowing more frequent well spacing, but you still have to build a minimum sized lease unit. As far as I can tell, that would be 40 acres, but not sure. The operators are drilling more wells on the same lease and then going horizontal to reach through the shale and break it up.
There is some great information in this pdf and there is a really cool map of DFW airport near the end that shows how they plan to fully exploit the gas underneath the airport.
The old rule was made up for a small acreage landowner who didn't get included in a 40 acre unit. They obviously do not have enough acreage to create their own pool and if they don't get lumped in with an adjoining unit, then their minerals never get developed. The rule forces the driller to include the little landowner if he so demands to be included. Apparently the new interpretation is that the driller can forcibly include a little landowner so as to obtain his 40 acre minimum lease unit. This will totally shaft the people like FWCando by forcibly including them in a lease unit even if they are conscientously objecting to the drilling and do not wish to partake. At least that is my interpretation of the newspaper article.
I hope I am sounding consistent here, because I am pro-gas drilling and yet pro-private property rights. If someone doesn't want their minerals developed then that is their right. This bureaucratic ruling is wrong and hopefully will be swatted down. Unfortunately, it would probably take an expensive court case to do that.
#150
Posted 29 December 2008 - 05:36 PM
Is it possible to develop my minerals (natural gas, anyway) without also developing, at least to some extent, my immediate neighbor's?
Let's say I own 5 acres of land and Joe owns 40 acres surrounding my land. Would it be fair for Joe to deny me reasonable access to my land? The law says that Joe must provide me access, even if he would prefer not to. I have a right to use my land.
What if Joe wants to develop his minerals? Do I have a right to prevent him? What if he really needs the money and I'm just a rich, greedy bastard? Should my circumstances allow me to put Joe at a disadvantage? What if I'm holding out to force Joe into selling me his land because he needs the money so badly and I've got him cornered?
I guess my point is that the law has to allow for reasonable settlement of mineral disputes that are non-preferencial in nature. I shouldn't be able to make you use up your minerals, but you shouldn't be able to prevent me from using mine. I think that's where the 40 acre thing comes from. It makes the developers acquire most of the affected land before they can drill. If you're the holdout, you still get paid for the minerals in some fashion.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users