Hydrofracing

[Bird]

Shooting may also refer to the perforating guns used to make holes in the downhole casing

Yep, I remember that, too. My Dad used to work for a company called Johnston Testers in Oklahoma and an uncle was with Lane-Wells for most of his life. I believe Lane-Wells was bought out by Halliburton.

 

[murphy1244]

Halliburton, Now there's a name you can trust.:laughing:

 

[Bird]

Halliburton, Now there's a name you can trust.:laughing:

Well, you probably have about the same opinion of the current Halliburton that I do.:laughing:

 

[Bob77064]

Egon, very interesting video thanks for posting.

 

[murphy1244]

I have a friend of mine that lost his well from a new drill job. Cost him 15000.00 to put in a cistern.He could turn on his water and lite it like my cherry bomb torch. WOW!!!

 

[jonyyuma]

Well, you probably have about the same opinion of the current Halliburton that I do.:laughing:

Well that would be putting it mildly, wouldn't it???50 years ago they could not horizonal bore, much less up under your property. I have nothing againest natural gas, But I will need good clean water to drink the rest of my life. If it takes thousands of gallons of water to one shot,,,Then. The water I see is ruined, you would die before the first swallow..The AIR ain't too good close to the reclaim center either...Hundred s of trucks of water coming and leaving around the clock...If they propose a reclaim LAGOON temporarily around you I hope you get Millions of dollars as you are going to want it later..

 

[jwnge]

I remember Haliburton coming to frack a well when I was in High school in Kentucky, 1964. They brought 2 tankers and a huge pump truck, it had a allison aircraft engine that ran the pump. The engine was covered with 2 hinged covers and when they started the engine it blew the covers open. Open exaust, very loud. They hooked the hoses to a well head and pumped the chemicals into it. The wells there hardly went deeper than 500 or 600 ft. I remember the ground shaking after they pumped for a while. It was mostly sandrock in that area and several months later while rabbit hunting we stopped at a spring where a barrel had been burried many years prior to get a drink, the water was very salty and stinky but not with the crude oil look. Always before this water was as good as you could find taste wise. Not sure if it was the fracking but I suspect it was.

 

[Wayne County Hose]

Boy I need my boots. It's getting deep in this thread.

 

[Tollster]

Can you imagine how much money the oil companies will pay to have a judge overturn this 110 year court ruling that shale is a mineral.

Court Ruling Could Upend Drilling Leases Across Pennsylvania | StateImpact Pennsylvania

Here is your well educated hard working out of state fracker, hard at it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2815261/posts

If anyone here is undecided on which side of the fence they sit, at the very least get informed, you cannot find facts on forums as there are pros and cons to every story. Facts are backed up with supporting references. Therefore ,I urge anyone who has fracking taking place nearby,or knows it will be at their doorsteps in the future to listen to this news radio program. I feel it is nonbias, and speaks of how it has gotten to be so popular here is Pennsylvania.
Its a good listen, kick back and relax.

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/play_full.php?play=440

 

[greasemonkeyok]

Tollster - you correctly advocate learning the facts, but persist in citing This American Life as if it is some authoritative scientific journal.

I listen to it and would categorize it mostly in the realm of entertainment. Kind of a counterpoint to Rush Limbaugh.

In the realm of getting educated and whether shale is a mineral, it is. Sand is also. Lots of imprecise reporting in the press on the issue before the courts is misleading.

What is NOT being decided in the courts is whether shale is a mineral.

What IS being decided in the courts is whether the parties to various deeds in PA intended to include the hydrocarbon component of shale in the reservation or conveyance of "minerals" when the ownership of "minerals" was severed from the surface. In other words, when the 1889 deed says it conveys "minerals", did the parties to that deed intend to convey the gas and oil in the shale formations?

This article by lawyers say it better than I can:
http://www.martindale.com/members/A...&id=1358598&filename=asr-1358638.Industry.pdf