So, You think you own your land...

[LMTC]

Well...lovely rant, but companies are nothing more than nonpersonal legal entities the primary purpose of which is to engage in profitable commerce. Companies do not "care", they do not "deceive", nor do they "lie". People do those things. So fuss all you want about companies in any particular industry, but the real issue is the ethics and morals of individual people, and far too many people set their standards on the basis of their ever-changing beliefs, wants, or needs. Unless a person believes in moral absolutes, why would they have anything BUT changing (or situational) ethics? Unless there is one sole source of absolute morals, the different beliefs of different people will still allow for behavoirs that will shock/dismay one group of people or another. Many people (particularly in the US), through groups they form, have devoted much energy and resources the past several decades to discredit and dislodge an absolute moral basis as a belief. I contend that their success so far is the primary reason for behaviors such as you decry.

I hope I've kept this philosophical enough to avoid violating rules about politics and religion.

 

[David Ferguson]

IF all this water being injected is JUST Salt Water, as the RRC and Oil and Gas would like us all to continue believing, I'll ask you this question...When was the last time you heard of just plain salt water exploding and catching fire!!??
QUOTE]

Why just recently (last two months). http://digg.com/environment/Turning_Salt_Water_Into_Fuel

 

[KaiB]

What he said!

LMTC, that was as elegantly said as anything I have read for quite some time.

Odd that the only answer some parties have to reasonable discussion and science is a loud voice, which in most instances, is aimed at the discussor, not the discussion.

 

[riptides]

..... Companies do not "care", they do not "deceive", nor do they "lie". People do those things. So fuss all you want about companies in any particular industry, but the real issue is the ethics and morals of individual people, and far too many people set their standards on the basis of their ever-changing beliefs, wants, or needs....

Companies are run by people. Get enough people with the same mindset and you have power. Boards can be influenced, can be told deceit, tidbits of information that skirt the truth...etc.etc.

Enron comes to mind.

-Mike Z.

 

[LMTC]

Companies are run by people. Get enough people with the same mindset and you have power. Boards can be influenced, can be told deceit, tidbits of information that skirt the truth...etc.etc.

Enron comes to mind.

-Mike Z.

I never said there wasn't power in groups of people. My point was to recognize that it is STILL JUST PEOPLE. Not some anonymous "they", or "Big Oil", or whatever. If you want to impact that power, you do better to understand it's origins and it's motives than to simply rant against it or even try to go headfirst into it with more power. And my further point was, and remains, a lot of this--maybe most of this--has to do with the ethics and morals of those PEOPLE. And then we examine where those come from, and we come to realize that without a singular source of absolute, consistent, unchanging morality, people's actions will be guided most often by situational ethics. For me, and many others, that source of absolute, consistent, unchanging morality comes from something that can't be discussed per the forum rules.

Now if anyone prefers to just fuss and fume, it is certainly their prerogative. I remain convinced that the means of change begins with the source (or lack of same) of people's morals (and I mean this in the larger sense of ethics, not just the sense that "moral" and "immoral" is used commonly today re: carnal things).

How many of you (rhetorical question here, please do not answer publicly) have taken a $$ loss, or a personal loss, or job loss, or promotion loss in order to maintain an ethical position on some issue(s)? Conversely, have you EVER compromised what you know or believe to be ultimately right/just/ethical to save or get something you wanted or owned? To make a few $$? For any other reason? If you have, how are the people making decisions in these companies any different than you? There are no little or big wrongs in pure ethics. Some acts may have different punishments in the law of the land, but if there is an absolute source of morality then any wrong is a violation of it. There are no degrees.

I truly am not trying to lecture anyone here, rather to clarify some things I think may be being overlooked. I will tell you candidly that I would have to answer some of my second set of questions "yes." It's been a long time, but I have done so. I hope and intend to never do so again. Recognize that the morality of any group of people comes from the individuals in it. Change the basis for those morals and you change the behavior. Change the laws and you only change the methods which some people use to get around them.

 

[cp1969]

There are no little or big wrongs in pure ethics. Some acts may have different punishments in the law of the land, but if there is an absolute source of morality then any wrong is a violation of it. There are no degrees.

I will tell you candidly that I would have to answer some of my second set of questions "yes." It's been a long time, but I have done so. I hope and intend to never do so again.

OK, I agree with the logic and admire your desire to act ethically, but the next time your wife asks a question such as, "Do you think this dress makes me look fat?" how are you going to answer?

 

[LMTC]

You're mixing issues. Absolute truthfulness is not equivalent to being absolutely ethical. If your breath smells like a sewer and you ask me "Is my breath bad today?", am I acting unethically if I say, "CP, it's a little on the rough side. Can I offer you a stick of gum?". Are you suggesting I need to say "CP your breath is unequivocally horrendous"? Ethics is about behaviors and actions AND their consequences. One's ethics come from one's core beliefs/values.

And to answer your question, if I thought the dress creates an appearance that will be unflattering to my wife, yes I would tell her so. She would never ask "Do you think this dress makes me look fat." She might ask "Whaddya think? OK, not OK, or somewhere in between?"

To further illustrate my point, I am in a nearly deserted part of town and a child runs past saying "Please don't tell, the man is going to kill me." Two minutes later a man runs up and says, "Did you see a child run by here? I'm trying to find him so I can kill him." Now is it unethical to not tell that man the absolute truth? Of course not. That is why your example really is not valid.

 

[Unclebuck257]

What he said!

LMTC, that was as elegantly said as anything I have read for quite some time.

Odd that the only answer some parties have to reasonable discussion and science is a loud voice, which in most instances, is aimed at the discussor, not the discussion.

Be assured KaiB that my last post was not just a loud voice or rant, and it was definitely part of the discussion in this thread, since that discussion is about oil and gas exploration on a person's land. Injection wells are definitely a big part of oil and gas exploration, a very big part that they don't want the public to know the truth about too. Rather than a "loud voice" as you call it, it was a list of truths that I know to be fact because I lived through most of it myself. Important truths, that you seem to want to make seem somehow unimportant with your little quips!

You are correct that, in part, it was aimed at you because of your post and the attitude you seemed to project in that post, since you appear determined to try and convince others that some of the facts I've stated are unimportant or non serious. I especially liked your Benzene comments! I'm curious, just what part of the oil and gas industry do you work for?

Instead of making what you apparently consider your cute little quips, why don't you refute what I've said and prove the facts I've stated as false. The reason is because you can't and everything I've stated is on the record and fact. Anyone in here can research any of the particular places and instances I've mentioned, on line. How about you proving me wrong in the same way!


LMTC,

You'd be the man I'd want on my team if I was going into a philosophical debate, but unfortunately here in Texas, all the oil and gas problems being discussed in this thread are a reality and hitting a lot of us rural land and home owners right smack in the face. It's OK I guess to live in Ohio and be a Philosopher on a problem subject in another part of the country, but it's entirely different to have that problem hanging over your head on a daily basis. A problem I might add, that can destroy everything you've worked your entire life for, due to someone else's total disregard for everything you hold dear and their own greed!

We ( the citizens of Texas ) will change it alright, and we'll do it in a rather rapid fashion, over the next few years, through the major power the citizens have. We're already changing the situation for the better, by standing up and fighting and not buying into that garbage that "you can't beat oil and gas because they have all the money". One small group of 44 has already turned into literally thousands, all over North Texas. More and more truth keeps coming out to people that did not know the truth previously. More and more are being educated weekly, through newspaper articles, TV news stories and magazine articles. Those smaller groups of people all over Texas, will be one large group of Texans, statewide, before too long too.

 

[LMTC]

UncleBuck,
In no way did I mean to imply that you should sit around and simply contemplate the issue. My response was not an attempt to criticize any organized coherent action plan. It was simply an attempt to point out that in the longer run/bigger picture it would benefit us all to be acutely aware of how things get like this....why people do or don't do things. In fact, the last paragraph of your last post clearly states that this is how you expect to get change....by making people aware of some things in the hopes of effecting their behaviors (becoming politically vocal, etc.).

I don't sit around in Ohio and philosophize, but I do try to think about issues in terms beyond the immediate. If a freight train is bearing down on you...or someone you can help....obviously you have to act. But wouldn't it be good, once the crisis is met, to think about what caused it and what might be done to avert another? Often that involves how and why people do what they do.

Your earlier post did cause me concern because it sounded (to me) as if you were criticizing "big money" and oil and gas companies. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things. What is wrong is the things people do....in the case you reference, the people who determine policy, etc. in a particular company. I wish you well. I am a HUGE fan of private property rights. I am also a huge fan of putting blame where blame belongs, and not on some term designed to generate emotion. Every time I hear "big oil" or "big tobacco" I immediately think "yeah or 'big media' and 'big so-called public organization living on taxpayer money'."

Good luck in getting a fair resolution.

 

[KaiB]

I am an Environmental Consultant. A bio-chemist with a minor in math, I do my best to use science to guide my actions and decisions.

I'm am the guy who gets called in to examine the "mess", do the risk assessments, work with the regulatory agencies, and clean up the mess if necessary. I've been doing this for quite some time and am told I'm good at it.

Having gone toe to toe with County, State and Federal agencies, property owners and industry, I have a fair idea of the issues involved.

I'd be glad to discuss benzene all day long. When one refers to "those toxic fluids" and "toxic waste" without quantifing chemical levels, the location of those constituents, and the possibile future fate and transport of same, all one does is reduce the discussion to hysteria.

I have no dog in the hunt at all; I just go where the numbers take me.

 

[Unclebuck257]

LMTC,

Rest assured that I am NOT being critical of big money. As you have said, that's what it's all about, making money, and I'm all for that. Oil and Gas is big money, and they have to spend a lot, to make a lot. All I'm asking, as are many others, is that it be done in a responsible manner. For example, with horizontal drilling now, they can drill one well hole and actually get, I believe, up to 5 wells from it by drilling out horizontially from the origination point.

OK, someone else owns the mineral rights under my land. I understand that and understood it when I bought my property. BUT, let's not forget I DO OWN the surface rights! A drilling company comes on my property, I want the respect as the surface owner that I deserve and that I demand as the one paying the taxes on it.

Let's sit down and talk about where you're going to put up your drilling rig, how much you're going to pay me for my surface land you're going to tear up while drilling (about 3-4 acres with every drilling rig operation) and how you plan on restoring my surface land back to where it was before you showed up. Let's understand that you and your drilling crew are GUESTS on MY LAND, and don't come on my place acting, from the jump start, that I have no right to say anything to you about what you do, or where you do it. Oh, and don't cut down a single tree of mine, without my agreeing first to which one(s) and US agreeing about replacement costs.

In all fairness to the oil and gas industry, many in that industry have realized that times have changed and this land is no longer the vast rural ranch land it once was, where no one cared. Those companies, like Devon Energy here, work hand in hand with surface owners on the things I mentioned and really try to have a peaceful resolution to this situation.

There are still those however, like the company we are fighting, who have MUCH less than a good reputation in general, who think they can just show up, come on your land as they wish at any time, without permission, do whatever they want, and you can't do anything about it. I stopped them from initially coming on my property about 3-4 years ago, to survey where they were going to drill. It had rained hard for several days prior, and the pastures were soaked and ground was very soft and mushey. They showed up with 4 wheel drive Suburbans. I met them at my gate as they were trying to come in. I told them I knew I couldn't stop them from ultimately coming on to drill, but that I did NOT have to allow their vehicles on my soft pasture at that time, and thus tear up my pasture. I opened my gate, but said they'd have to walk where ever, equipment and all, or come back when the ground was harder. They walked!!

They left my place when done and went to my neighbor's place. He and his wife weren't home. They cut his chain lock, went in, drove around and tore up his pastures, and left, leaving his gates wide open and unlocked.

My brother in law is a supervising tool pusher for a large oil and gas drilling company. For those that don't know, a tool pusher is the person in charge of the drillers and drilling operations of one rig, or possibly more rigs, at one time.

Anyhow, the company he works for is one of those that works closely with the surface owner, from the beginning to the end of the drilling operations, to ensure there are as few problems as possible, for all concerned. All I'm asking is for laws like other states have now to insure fairness to ALL parties. Heck, I drive a diesel and a gas truck, so I know we need the energy.

 

[Unclebuck257]

I am an Environmental Consultant. A bio-chemist with a minor in math, I do my best to use science to guide my actions and decisions.

I'm am the guy who gets called in to examine the "mess", do the risk assessments, work with the regulatory agencies, and clean up the mess if necessary. I've been doing this for quite some time and am told I'm good at it.

Having gone toe to toe with County, State and Federal agencies, property owners and industry, I have a fair idea of the issues involved.

I'd be glad to discuss benzene all day long. When one refers to "those toxic fluids" and "toxic waste" without quantifing chemical levels, the location of those constituents, and the possibile future fate and transport of same, all one does is reduce the discussion to hysteria.

I have no dog in the hunt at all; I just go where the numbers take me.

With your background, you either know very little about the particular subject at hand, injection wells and their problems or you do your inspections on behalf of the oil and gas industry. You are probably very good at what you do, but from your "hysteria" comment, it's obvious you obviously know next to nothing about injection well problems.

I notice that you have not specifically commented on any of the cases I've sited, especially Panola County, Texas. That usually means the person answering knows nothing about the cases mentioned, the specific subject at hand of injection wells, or oil and gas well polution in general. Leaking gas station storage tanks aren't good my friend, but they are a far cry from what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about are millions of barrels, not a few galons, of toxic waste purposely being pressure injected into the ground on a daily basis. What you're talking about are a few hundred gallons, at most, of gasoline accidentially seeping into the ground.

Why do we have people like you to correct a few hundred gallon, accidental, seepage into the ground and then permit, by present Texas law, millions of BARRELS of a much worse toxic fluid to be pressure injected, on purpose, into our ground? One of the reasons is very simple. Up until recently, the gasoline tank leakage took place mostly in cities where there were many. many, eyes, while these injection wells were all in rural areas and no one really knew what was going on.

I do respect your education and knowledge, but what I'm saying here is that you either choose not to look into and know the truth about these injection well dangers, or you have no knowledge at all about them. The ONLY Environmental Consultants I've ever heard talk like you do about the dangers of injection wells, either will admit they have no first hand knowledge of injection wells and their problems, or they are employed by the oil and gas industry. Even some of those employed by oil and gas will admit, off the record of course, that these injection wells are dangerous and willcome back to bite us in the rear in the future, regarding our supply of fresh water being poisoned.

Hydrogeologists have stated, and testified under oath, that we are destroying Texas' fresh water supply for future generations to come, and no one knows how bad the full impact will really be, but it will be bad. No one really knows, because these toxic waste injection wells have been pressure injecting these toxic poisons into our ground for generations already.

I realize you have no dog in this fight and only go where the numbers take you. It is now very obvious to me that your numbers have not taken you anywhere around the injection well situation. Please, as a consultant in your field, look into what I'm saying and the cases I've quoted specifically, and then come back and tell me and others reading your posts that there is no problem. I assure you that you won't be able to back that up with any facts if you do try!

One last thing I'd like to ask you, if I may. You talked about discussing toxins in our water without discussing percentages of toxins, and how that reduces a discussion to hysteria. Just how much Benzene, percentage wise now, is OK for you and your children to drink in every glass of water you drink, compared to how much is too much?

Also, here's a list that I got a hold of, by mistake of course, of what is contained in the liquid toxic waste they're pressure injecting into these injection wells. Please tell me, and the rest reading this post, just how much of each one is OK for YOU and YOUR FAMILY to drink in each glass of water daily and how much is too much..

Rigwash, Packer Fluids, Drilling Fluids, Workover wastes, Produced Sands, Drill Cuttings, Cooling Tower Blowdown, Hydrocarbon-bearing soil, Pigging wastes from gathering lines, Drilling fluids and cuttings from offshore operations disposed of on shore, Well completion, treatment and stimulation fluids. Basic sediment and water and other tank bottoms from storage facilities that hold product and oil and gas waste.

Accumulated materials such as hydrocarbons, solids, sand, and emulsion from production seperators, fluid treating vessels, and production impoundments, Pit sludges and contaminated bottoms from storage or disposal of oil and gas wastes. Gas plant dehydration wastes, including glycol-based compounds, glycol filters, filter media, backwash, and molecular sieves.

Gas plant sweetening wastes for sulfur removal, including amine, amine filters, amine filtermedia, backwash, precipitated amine sludge, iron sponge and hydrogen sulfide scrubber liquid and sludge.

Spent oil and gas filters, filter media and backwash. Pipe scale, hydrocarbon solids, hydrates, and other deposits removed from piping and equipment prior to transportation. Wastes from subsurface gas storage and retrieval, Constituents removed from produced water before it is injected or otherwise disposed of, Liquid hydrocarbons removed from the production stream but not from oil refining, Gases removed from the production stream, such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dixoide, and volatized hydrocarbons.

Materials ejected from a producing well during the process known as blowdown, Waste crude oil from primary field operations and production, Light organics volitilized from oil and gas wastes in reserve pits or impoundments or production equipment, and, last but not least, they also say....Other exploration and production wastes!

I am also a professional, with 40 years in my field, a field that investigates this sort of thing and it's consequences. Read up on the subject at hand my friend and then come back and discuss injection wells with knowledge behind you and not with just blanket, uninformed, statements. You'll quickly see there is no hysteria here, just a professional trying to bring knowledge to his fellow citizens.

 

[KaiB]

There you go, Buck, you just went after me. In that entire diatribe, you asked only one discussable question. The rest of your language goes after my knowledge and character.

To answer your one lucid question, I have no problem whatsoever drinking benzene at a level of 5ppb. I could do so for thirty years at a rate of 2 Liters a day and not be concerned.

You'll notice that I exhibited empathy for you and yours; this is proper discussion. You, on the other hand, spend you emotional time attacking entities, screaming with capital letters, qualifing your arguement and ranting about "toxins" without mentioning specific parameters.

Gotta go, I have far better things to do. BTW, my current most interesting case involves dioxins in groundwater which are encroaching a pristine marine bay. This may or may not be an issue (despite some screaming by a few rainbow clad locals). I don't yet know, as we have not fully characterized the site.

 

[riptides]

So what I get out of this discussion is that pollution is acceptable as long as it is within certain levels, doesn't encroach on particular areas, doesn't prompt abnormalties or kill oneself in a given moment in time and follows the law and regulations of a governing ethical body.

Sheesh.... now I know why I get my well water tested every six months.

-Mike Z.

 

[Unclebuck257]

There you go, Buck, you just went after me. In that entire diatribe, you asked only one discussable question. The rest of your language goes after my knowledge and character.

To answer your one lucid question, I have no problem whatsoever drinking benzene at a level of 5ppb. I could do so for thirty years at a rate of 2 Liters a day and not be concerned.

You'll notice that I exhibited empathy for you and yours; this is proper discussion. You, on the other hand, spend you emotional time attacking entities, screaming with capital letters, qualifing your arguement and ranting about "toxins" without mentioning specific parameters.

Gotta go, I have far better things to do. BTW, my current most interesting case involves dioxins in groundwater which are encroaching a pristine marine bay. This may or may not be an issue (despite some screaming by a few rainbow clad locals). I don't yet know, as we have not fully characterized the site.

KiaB,

You seem very touchy today, just because I point out to you what are apparently your knowledge weaknesses of the subject at hand. That's a shame and I would think, that as a professional, you would be willing to learn all you could on a subject that you apparently do lack knowledge in. That wasn't diatribe my friend, those were facts! That list of what's in that pressure injected water in those injection wells, was fact too.

Shut me up and prove what I'm saying is wrong, as YOU strongly alluded to at first, by disputing what I've stated as facts! Don't just say, "I'm not going to talk to you anymore because I think you were mean to me, so I'm going to taske my ball and go home"! Also, I was not hollaring at you or anyone. I use capital letters to emphasize something. Since I was responding directly to YOU and your post, who else should I have questioned or directed my post to?

On a subject this serious, with me especially, you don't get to just come in and post some statement alluding that I'm over reacting and exagerating the truth and facts, and not expect to be called on it by me. You must not like my very lucid facts as much as you don't like my lucid questions either, since again, you don't respond with any supposed countering facts. You appear to just like to make statements telling me how this subject is supposed to be discussed. I guess that's OK in your world, but in mine, a man has to prove what he's saying is true! I have, I did, and now it's your turn!

 

[VA_Joe]

Very good post, Tom H. I have seen families wrecked by squabbling over inheritances and as you pointed out, mostly by females.

I have been saying for a long time that in our present system, all a landowner "owns" is the right to pay taxes on a piece of property. If you want to find out who the real owner is, just fail to pay those taxes.

There is a whole 'nother rant that goes with this, but I'll save it for another time.

Property taxes actually serve a useful purpose (and yes - they are too high). People are temporary - land is forever. By requiring annual tax payments, land that has been abandoned by its lawful owner(s) can be returned to the community and resold to others. The same should be true for mineral rights. I'm sure that there are many parcels for which the rightful owner(s) of the mineral rights can either no longer be found or the determination of ownership is so complicated (due to multiple inheritances or etc.) that it would take years to sort out. By requiring annual tax payments - it forces the rightful owner(s) of the mineral rights to demonstrate on an annual basis that they have a continued interest in the property.

My two cents.

Joe

 

[cp1969]

My understanding is there is no taxation on the mineral rights.

 

[VA_Joe]

My understanding is there is no taxation on the mineral rights.

I agree. Just making a point that this is one of the problems with the whole split rights scheme. If mineral rights (and other rights) were taxed as the surface rights were - the number of properties subject to this "split ownership" would be far fewer. in any case - no disagreement.

Joe

 

[cp1969]

I agree. Just making a point that this is one of the problems with the whole split rights scheme. If mineral rights (and other rights) were taxed as the surface rights were - the number of properties subject to this "split ownership" would be far fewer. in any case - no disagreement.

Joe

Ummm, maybe. My opinion is, however, that additional taxes are rarely, if ever, the solution to a problem.

 

[LMTC]

Actually I like the point. And not additional taxes (goodness, think of the havoc governments could wreak with even more money), but split taxes. If the property rights are split, why not split the taxes? I've always thought that anyone with an easement on a deed should pay a % of the property taxes.