Originally posted by sonhouseThe loan has nothing to do with it. If the previous owner had mineral rights to the property he/she either sold them to you or kept them for his/herself. If the previous owner was not sold the mineral rights there was no way for you to buy them from the owner that sold the property to you.
By 'contract' you mean the bank loan papers?
You would have to find out who owns the mineral rights if you wanted to make an offer to buy them. The property could have gone through many owners without any mineral rights being bought and sold.
Originally posted by rwingettAnd it would all be fixed if we would just allow lefty extremists to tax the hell out of us, with carbon credits.
What a hopeless thread. As long as a majority of the people seem determined to continue with business as usual until it's far too late, it would seem that the prospects for the future will be bleak. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
Originally posted by normbenignHow about the bought off law makers realizing fracking sucks and go about getting energy elsewhere where at least at the end you can drink the water?
And it would all be fixed if we would just allow lefty extremists to tax the hell out of us, with carbon credits.
Originally posted by sonhouseIs it fracking or did the well have ruptures or leaks allowing hydrocarbons to pass into the formations with water?
How can we accept the fact that the entire US government from the Presidency to congress to the Supreme court has been 100% bought off by the gas industry who now dictates what environmental laws say?
And now we see it is not just in the US where towns are being turned into Chernobles, abandoned homes, whole towns decimated.
Now it is being repeated a ...[text shortened]... we need to grow crops, entire towns depopulated.
Is this the best way to grow all our crops?
My family has been asked to sign a lease agreement along with an exploration agreement that probably involves fracking for natural gas. For this reason I wanted to bring this thread back to the attention of the debate community. I watched the documentary from this link and would like some input on this issue. Some films can be biased. Is this one stretching the truth?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/unearthed-fracking-facade/
Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” of subterranean natural gas has also been hailed as making available a fuel that burns cleaner than coal. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has recently done flyovers of fracking sites in Utah and found disturbing evidence of substantial methane emissions. Methane is a very powerful and dangerous greenhouse gas that would more than cancel out the benefit of natural gas over coal.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/07/1229636/-NOAA-Investigation-Finds-Massive-Methane-Emissions-from-Utah-Fracking-6-to-12-Lost-to-Atmosphere?=action#
Originally posted by sonhouseI found this link with a critic of the film Gasland II. I'm not sure who is right, just trying to get a debate started to find the truth.
The statistic that jumped out at me was the one that said the concrete liners of fracking wells fail on day one at a 5 % rate. With 100,000 wells already in place in the US, including two of my home towns, one near Venice Beach Calif. and the others close to my present home in the Pocono Mountains (the Marcellus shale), that leaves (if that statistic is cor DEN water pipes in 1978. Think how well they would be equipped to handle RADIUM contamination.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2013/07/10/gasland-part-ii-same-misleading-images-new-conspiracy-theory
Edit: Here is a pro fracking link that I saw on PBS tevevision.
http://www.energyfromshale.org/