Rio
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 25 to 32 of 32
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    498 Posts
    Chats
    729
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Re: ="Troubled Promise - Little Oversight - Looming Problems"

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Spinner View Post
    Drilling is more intrusive and with a much higher risk than planned development within a given watershed. As a river restoration specialist, give me storm water, sewer, pesticide and impervious surface issues all day over a single spill of fracing fluid. One is the death of the watershed by a thousand cuts, but that can be remediated to acceptable levels where clean water is concerned. The other when it happens - a spill into a river or contaminated wells - is a deal closer. Game over. Go home. Depending on what is leaking, how much and from where the river may one day recover in our lifetimes and then maybe not. I can undo a poorly performing sewer plant or deal with storm water when a new building complex goes into the watershed.
    As a River Restoration Specialist, how many rivers do you know of that have been rendered unable to support wild trout populations due to "storm water, sewer, pesticide and impervious surface issues"---development in general? How many of those do you think will be restored to the point they CAN support a fishery?

    In the 60 years of its use, how many rivers have been destroyed by fracking to the point "where the river may one day recover in our lifetimes" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Spinner View Post
    Thank God I don't live within the Marcellus Shale region. And I'm not sure what you, FF, have against those who own second homes? This is still America and last I checked it was OK to succeed in life and sometimes that means buying yourself a fishing cabin on a nice river you can escape to from time to time. Won't happen to me, but it has to some buddies and good for them! You should be happy, more gas you can sell to them when they're in town...
    That's just it RS, I really don't have a problem with the "occasional cabin by the river". I often wish people would steer clear of building in certain places, but I understand that it is their money, their property and as long as they follow the rules, good for them. If a person builds next to me, I have to deal with any noise, leaks from their heating oil tank, their well's cone of depression, altering my view (maybe their cutting and bulldozing of the forest), the integrity of their septic, surface water diversions and on and on. Building and development are inherently bad for the environment (As done traditionally) but we make rules to mitigate any possible risks and let it happen. Right?

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  2. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NE PA, NY, NJ
    Posts
    1,569
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    393
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    675
    Thanked in
    321 Posts
    Chats
    2
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: ="Troubled Promise - Little Oversight - Looming Problems"

    Lots of "hope"...

    "do you want to see more development in the region because people sell their land to developers?"

    "If these people who own land need the gas money to KEEP their land from development..." You can sell your land and still retain the gas/mineral rights, Yes?

    "I think I fish, in part, because it's an anti-social, bohemian business that, when gone about properly, puts you forever outside the mainstream culture without actually landing you in an institution." John Gierach

    www.FlyFishTheDelaware.com


  3. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    498 Posts
    Chats
    729
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Re: ="Troubled Promise - Little Oversight - Looming Problems"

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe D View Post
    Lots of "hope"...

    "do you want to see more development in the region because people sell their land to developers?"

    "If these people who own land need the gas money to KEEP their land from development..." You can sell your land and still retain the gas/mineral rights, Yes?
    One COULD, Joe. Do you see much evidence of THAT? First, most people with large tracts of land WANT to keep it(except for developers who bought the land SO they could divide it up to sell). Those are the people I was writing about. And secondly, who would WANT to buy land where someone else retains the mineral rights. Why wait and worry that some company MIGHT drill near one's place. To have to put up with the bother of a drill site with no financial reward, when one could buy land WITH the mineral rights intact? I'd be shocked if many people would buy land without the mineral rights intact. Maybe some realtor could give us some evidence in that regard.

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  4. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hancock
    Posts
    553
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: ="Troubled Promise - Little Oversight - Looming Problems"

    Severing of estates is very common where minerals are extracted. Look at what the federal government owns in the western US. In Utah almost 90% of the mineral estates are owned by the federal government.

    The value of land with mineral rights severed depends on what type of lease and how strong the lease is, in this case gas leases. The more protections in the lease the higher the value of the surface estate.

    You can have a "no surface use lease" and the value of the surface estate should not be effected by the application of horizontal drilling.

    The lease is the best protection you have. Regulations only go so far and everything is negotiable in a gas lease. Whether theo&g's will except various addenda is another questions and is determined by how bad they want or need that piece of property to say complete a drilling unit.

    If anyone is interested in finding more info you can go to www.pagaslease.com an excellent site for information on all aspects of drilling, the good, the bad and the ugly.

    This area has not had to deal with split estates but all you have to do is go to western Pa and WVA and ask the people there if they own the coal rights. They will tell you they don't and haven't for over 100 years.

    KF

    A good well with a trouble-free delivery system is more comfort than a healthy bank account... water will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no water.

  5. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    498 Posts
    Chats
    729
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Re: ="Troubled Promise - Little Oversight - Looming Problems"

    Just wonderin' if you missed these questions, RS.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rusty Spinner
    Drilling is more intrusive and with a much higher risk than planned development within a given watershed. As a river restoration specialist, give me storm water, sewer, pesticide and impervious surface issues all day over a single spill of fracing fluid. One is the death of the watershed by a thousand cuts, but that can be remediated to acceptable levels where clean water is concerned. The other when it happens - a spill into a river or contaminated wells - is a deal closer. Game over. Go home. Depending on what is leaking, how much and from where the river may one day recover in our lifetimes and then maybe not. I can undo a poorly performing sewer plant or deal with storm water when a new building complex goes into the watershed.

    As a River Restoration Specialist, how many rivers do you know of that have been rendered unable to support wild trout populations due to "storm water, sewer, pesticide and impervious surface issues"---development in general? How many of those do you think will be restored to the point they CAN support a fishery?

    In the 60 years of its use, how many rivers have been destroyed by fracking to the point "where the river may one day recover in our lifetimes" ?


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rusty Spinner
    Thank God I don't live within the Marcellus Shale region. And I'm not sure what you, FF, have against those who own second homes? This is still America and last I checked it was OK to succeed in life and sometimes that means buying yourself a fishing cabin on a nice river you can escape to from time to time. Won't happen to me, but it has to some buddies and good for them! You should be happy, more gas you can sell to them when they're in town...

    That's just it RS, I really don't have a problem with the "occasional cabin by the river". I often wish people would steer clear of building in certain places, but I understand that it is their money, their property and as long as they follow the rules, good for them. If a person builds next to me, I have to deal with any noise, leaks from their heating oil tank, their well's cone of depression, altering my view (maybe their cutting and bulldozing of the forest), the integrity of their septic, surface water diversions and on and on. Building and development are inherently bad for the environment (As done traditionally) but we make rules to mitigate any possible risks and let it happen. Right?

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  6. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    498 Posts
    Chats
    729
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Re: ="Troubled Promise - Little Oversight - Looming Problems"

    Doesn't Agust live in Colorado now? He can't still be part of TU. Right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agust View Post
    but since I do not value your opinion at all, who gives a shit what you think.
    Agust
    Well, I guess MY OPINION was closer to that of TU's than his...

    https://www.tu.org/blog/responsible-...nt-can-happen/

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

  7. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    265
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    34
    Thanked in
    15 Posts
    Chats
    0
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Re: ="Troubled Promise - Little Oversight - Looming Problems"

    Still have a little reading comprehension issue I see. You appear to be confusing the implementation of some regulations in Colorado to protect trout streams, where none existed before, with the loosening of regulations in NY, PA to allow drilling and pipelines. TU (of which I am a life member, so yes even in Colorado, I'm still involved and have been since 1975) does not oppose all drilling, even fracking, but the do and rightly should oppose doing s in inappropriate places and allowing drillers to get away with bad practices and no consequences when they screw up.

    P.S. Gotta love when you get an email warning that a thread I'm on gets resurfaced 10 years later. Hope you are well, and fishing in these crazy times.


  8. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Unadilla, New York
    Posts
    5,248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    699
    Thanked in
    498 Posts
    Chats
    729
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 24 Times in 22 Posts


    Re: ="Troubled Promise - Little Oversight - Looming Problems"

    Quote Originally Posted by Agust View Post
    Still have a little reading comprehension issue I see. You appear to be confusing the implementation of some regulations in Colorado to protect trout streams, where none existed before, with the loosening of regulations in NY, PA to allow drilling and pipelines.
    So it is I who has the reading comprehension problem? YOU say that no regulation existed before... wouldn't you say that the bold type in the quote below belies your contention?

    A quote from the TU article:
    "To that end, the Commission voted unanimously to adopt revisions to its rules to:

    Increase buffers from 300’ avoidance to 500’ protection around important aquatic habitats–––a 980 percent increase around cutthroat and Gold Medal waters.
    Create 500-foot No Surface Occupancy buffers for all aquatic High Priority Habitat streams identified by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, including designated cutthroat trout habitat, Gold Medal streams, sportfish-managed waters and native species conservation waters. Nearly all of Colorado’s trout habitat will enjoy this increased protection.
    Requires stronger spill prevention measures within 1,000 feet of aquatic High Priority Habitat.
    Mandates to bore beneath streams in aquatic High Priority Habitat areas rather than trenching across it, which will help avoid impacts to fish habitat.

    AND who ever said ANYTHING about NY LOOSENING their regulations (I can't speak to Pa's situation)
    I've said all along that NY had the strictest rules(and I was happy with that.)

    What's the title of the TU article?

    Responsible oil and gas development can happen

    Show me where YOU voiced THAT opinion on this board--- EVER!

    Quote Originally Posted by Agust View Post
    P.S. Gotta love when you get an email warning that a thread I'm on gets resurfaced 10 years later
    You've got good friends

    Quote Originally Posted by Agust View Post
    Hope you are well, and fishing in these crazy times.
    Right back atcha...

    John
    Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.--Henry David Thoreau

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Participants: 8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •