Hydrofracking for natural gas in Catskills

[Craig]

Not to diminish the importance of the NY drilling and it's possible effects on the Adirondack State Park but with this ruling the gas companies can't be denied permits by the forest service or parks service, throughout the US, to frack their way into public lands, if mineral rights are privately owned.

This is probably more of an issue in the East where most public land was bought from private land owners? As apposed to the West where most public land was already owned by the government.

So, if someone owns the mineral rights to a section of the White Mountains the owner could sell those rights to the gas company. The gas company could in turn drill horizontally under public or private land to obtain the natural gas possibly damaging the water supply in the process?

 

[peakbagger]

My understanding is that generally the rights to subsurface resources go with the title to the land unless at some point it was seperated by a prior owner. A sort of similiar event occurs when someone sells a conservation easement on a piece of property. Prior to the easement, the land could be developed by the owner, after the easement, the owner is subject to whatever restrictions are in place for the easement. The easement stays with the title so when the land is sold the easement remains. Many deeds have all sorts of "encumbrances" that generally are reviewed as part of a title search. Frequently as the deed passes to later owners, the encumbrances are forgotten by the owners until a backhoe shows up in their front yard.

With regards to PA and many areas that may have had definable subsurface resources, many of the titles to the land has easements in the deed that allow access to subsurface resources by the easement holder. If the federal government bought the land with these easements in place, they have to follow the rules as well as anyone else. Unlike a private individual, the government has some recourse as they can implement eminent domain and take the mineral rigths under the land. Of course thius would be tied up in court for years as the owner of the easement would have to be compensated for the loss of potential value for the subsurface assets.

Given the history of the whites, I expect that most of the deeds are "clean" as they were bought primarilly from timber companies that were looking to make one last buck on the land they had just clear cut.

There are also some old mining laws that apply to federal land that are used frequently out west. I am not familiar enough with those laws to comment.

The federal government also used easements on deeds, I have seen many post WW2 deeds for former government lands that retain the rights for the mining of radioactive materials. A lot of the deeds in the Maine Mall area in South Portland have these.

If these concepts are new to you, you may want to review the title report on your deed if you own a home. Unfortunately most folks are overwhelmed by the process of buying a house and trust the real estate agents (who are working for the seller not the buyer) or mortgage broker (who is probably long out of business)Generally encumbrances are called out in the title report. Unfortunately a lot of deeds have little information and refer back to prior deeds, so its time to learn about book and page numbers to trace back the chain of title.

 

[daxs]

In Penna much of the land that is now being put up for sale in the Marcellus region is being offered without mineral rights. I know someone who bought land in Potter County recently and a search was done to determine who owned the property mineral rights to the property. It turned out the seller did not own the rights. Said person had looked at many parcels in Tioga/Potter counties and non of them were offered with the mineral rights

 

[Peakbagr]

An interpretation of the law in NY is going on right now if I have what I learned at a recent meeting correctly... If adjacent property owners( majority or super-majority by percentage) have sold their underground rights, the lessee
(hydrofrackers) may drill down and under your property even if you have not sold drilling rights to your land. Part of this discussion involves whether lessors of private property adjacent to DEC or DEP land may drill down and under NYS or NYS property. Stay tuned.

Very much appreciated that the discussion has required a very minimum of moderation given the emotional nature and potential life changing consequences of the search for natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shale reserves.

 

[Little Rickie]

An interpretation of the law in NY is going on right now if I have what I learned at a recent meeting correctly... If adjacent property owners( majority or super-majority by percentage) have sold their underground rights, the lessee
(hydrofrackers) may drill down and under your property even if you have not sold drilling rights to your land.

NO WAY! That's stealing.

It must be the golden rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules."

 

[RoySwkr]

Maybe the best way to quiet title is for the town or other taxing authority to start taxing the mineral rights, after all they are real property. This would give them revenue, and anyone that doesn't pay would lose the rights.

 

[peakbagger]

Great idea Roy, I expect the various state land local tax authorities would have a great time with that concept.

As an aside Nestle (Poland Spring) pumps millions of gallons out of underground acquifers in Maine without paying a cent to landowners or tax authorities for the product they extract. I guess they have good lobbyists

 

[daxs]

I believe if the company takes the gas from your property they have to pay you for the actual gas extracted. You just do not get the money for leasing the land. At least thats what I've read.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...Very much appreciated that the discussion has required a very minimum of moderation given the emotional nature and potential life changing consequences of the search for natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shale reserves.

A most tactful way of expressing that!

But, I'm not surprised by the lack of discussion. There are many on the board with strong opinions re: hydrofracking and the potential for its incredibly disastrous consequences. However, this is a hiking bulletin board, and a real discussion of the issue is impossible given the inherent political nature of some of the issues.

I don't think the outlook for preventing environmental devastation is hopeful, given that our environmental review organizations don't have the clout/authority to require the drillers to detail the components of the drilling fluid being injected into the ground.

We didn't learn much from the MTBE problem, and that was caused by comparatively small amounts of fluid.

Watch the movie Gasland.

 

[1ADAM12]

In Penna much of the land that is now being put up for sale in the Marcellus region is being offered without mineral rights. I know someone who bought land in Potter County recently and a search was done to determine who owned the property mineral rights to the property. It turned out the seller did not own the rights. Said person had looked at many parcels in Tioga/Potter counties and non of them were offered with the mineral rights

I know what you mean. I live in Tioga County PA and my wife and I want to buy a bigger house. Our "Starter home" is getting to small for us. Now the things is you cannot buy anything.

1. Way to much money now

2. The sellers do not want to sell the mineral rights.

I guess were stuck in our house in the middle of town. I guess we will have to remodel and make it what we really want.

 

[Peakbagr]

Began the thread with concern over the reaction of readers. I find that there are many on inside and outside of the hiking community who are not really aware of the potential impact of hydrofracking.
Wanted members to be able to bring themselves up to date, or for those more deeply involved to be able to exchange views and not go down the same road as hunting, dogs, cell phones, and AMC threads often do.

I believe hydrofracking poses a huge thread to the groundwater, aquifers and land near and far from the sites of wells and storage pools. At the same time, maybe we could present views, in a factual way that informs not flames.
Not sure if I have succeeded or not.

 

[Craig]

I only have a cursory grasp of the technical details of this issue but find it interesting the depth of knowledge on this hiking board. I'm not in the least bit interested in the politics of this issue as I tend to form my opinions based upon the facts. Most of the information on the TV or Net is slanted in one direction or the other.
Thanks for posting and keep us informed on anything learned from the meetings you're attending.

 

[nietzschescat]

A good place to understand what this is all about is www.catskillmountainkeeper.org

I think that people aren't really informed. All you need to do is see one youtube video of someone lighting their tap water with a match to think that hydrofracking might not be a great idea.

Of course, it's hard to reconcile being negative about gas drilling when we're dependent on it.
I guess I just wish the Marcellus Shale didn't run under the W. Catskills, but that's the whole not in my backyard thing. It also bothers me that it's going to run out anyhow......eventually it's all going to run out.....and in the meantime, we could be destroying the water.

Is all the negative press spin? What do environmental groups have to gain by saving the environment besides saving the environment?

How come it's impossible for the towns in the Catskills to dredge the streams to protect their towns from flooding and drilling for oil isn't considered a threat to the water?

 

[Snowflea]

eventually it's all going to run out.....

Bingo. With the exceptions of sun and wind (although one never knows for sure...)

Seems to be a matter of common sense not to mess with drinking water.

Agree w/KR: See Gasland.



PS: Spin is everywhere.

 

[Little Rickie]

Began the thread with concern over the reaction of readers. I find that there are many on inside and outside of the hiking community who are not really aware of the potential impact of hydrofracking.
Wanted members to be able to bring themselves up to date, or for those more deeply involved to be able to exchange views and not go down the same road as hunting, dogs, cell phones, and AMC threads often do.

I believe hydrofracking poses a huge thread to the groundwater, aquifers and land near and far from the sites of wells and storage pools. At the same time, maybe we could present views, in a factual way that informs not flames.
Not sure if I have succeeded or not.

Kudos! You did good.

I'm still not sure who spins the most and what are facts. Know the motivation of greed and profit I side with caution. Unfortunatly the factual situation is out of control and in confusion profit will win, right or wrong.

 

[Raven]

eventually it's all going to run out.....and in the meantime, we could be destroying the water.

But before it runs out, it will become much harder to get to, like oil has.

The BP oil spill (Deepwater Horizon) was very difficult to manage because the well was a mile below the surface. It was a mile below the surface because getting oil is no longer easy.

What will the hydrofracking accidents do to our water when natural gas actually becomes more difficult to obtain? The consequences seem bad enough already.

Water is by far our most valuable resource.

 

[Peakbagr]

Methane continues to taint groundwater

3 years later, methane still taints water supplies in Dimock, PA.
From today's Times Union:
http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Drilling-leaves-tainted-aquifer-2220919.php

 

[Craig]

Numerous issues, that are technical in nature and emotionally charged over numerous groups, what a cluster.

Well, a study by a Forest Service researcher lends validity to the notion that recovered fracking liquid is (at least) detrimental to ground vegetation in the short term. (abstract)

So if the drilling companies aren't telling what chemicals they're adding to the fracking liquid why don't we just test the recovered fracking liquid (post fracking) to find out? Is it because the fracking liquid picks up additional heavy metals and radioactive materials that are naturally occurring underground thus changing the chemical composition of the recovered fluid?

 

[Little Rickie]

Numerous issues, that are technical in nature and emotionally charged over numerous groups, what a cluster.

Well, a study by a Forest Service researcher lends validity to the notion that recovered fracking liquid is (at least) detrimental to ground vegetation in the short term. (abstract)

This case study identifies the need for further research to help understand the nature and the environmental impacts of hydrofracturing fluids to devise optimal, safe disposal strategies

That seems fair and not emotionally charged.

So if the drilling companies aren't telling what chemicals they're adding to the fracking liquid why don't we just test the recovered fracking liquid (post fracking) to find out? Is it because the fracking liquid picks up additional heavy metals and radioactive materials that are naturally occurring underground thus changing the chemical composition of the recovered fluid?

This seems too convient. Why don't they tell us what chemicals they're adding? Doesn't seem right?

 

[Craig]

I could have been clearer.

Numerous issues, that are technical in nature and emotionally charged over numerous groups, what a cluster.

This was in response to reading the news article Peakbagr posted.

I agree that drilling companies should divulge chemicals injected into the environment. However, if they don't and while we wait for the courts to compel them to, why don't we find out for ourselves? At first glance it would seem as easy as testing the recovered fracking fluid. Obviously, if it was that easy, it would have already been done.

So if the drilling companies aren't telling what chemicals they're adding to the fracking liquid why don't we just test the recovered fracking liquid (post fracking) to find out? Is it because the fracking liquid picks up additional heavy metals and radioactive materials that are naturally occurring underground thus changing the chemical composition of the recovered fluid?

So my question was to understand why it's so difficult to determine, for ourselves, what chemicals they are using.