Fracking Fluids Used on Roads

[golden beetle]

FF: Let me try to give you an example. Let's say you wanted to open a strip club in your house.

The fact is, your neighbors have a right to vote on zoning issues, ie, whether or not stripping should be allowed on the block.

Second, the State has a right to determine whether or not stripping should be allowed at all, anywhere in the State. Perhaps this would be controversial on 1st Amendment grounds (one could argue that stripping is protected free expression). Since there are no 1st Amendment issues involved with mining, the public is entitled to regulate as it sees fit. Accordingly, the better comparison, for mining, is prostitution. It has benefits, FOR SURE(!), but there are public health issues involved.

Finally, if your neighbors decided to regulate and prevented you from opening a brothel, they would not have to pay you - why should the people have to pay to exercise their democratic rights?

 

[golden beetle]

It looks like this thread is finished.

Thanks to all who witnessed the discussion. Future Faantic, you truly seem a good man, trying his best to turn a dollar on his "mineral rights.". I hope you make a lot of money - I do!

As to the debate - it was civil. I brought it to my debate coach - the master debator. He said I won, again, in a landslide. He noted that poor Future Fanatic was like a crack baby trying to fight a prime Mike Tyson.

As its gone before, it goes again - BEETLE WINS!!!!!!

 

[golden beetle]

ANDY B, Calling out ANDY B!!!

We is supposed to compete this weekend at KLG!!

I got my second ready to oversee your fishing.

I am announcing that I will be ready to face off against youy this weekend. Everyone knows I am willing to put up or shut up. Are you?

Come on, andy. The whole world wants to see me humiliated. Be a hero and do it for the NEFF community.

Silence the beetle - if you beat me, I will admit it without excuses. Whaddya say, andy! I think you is runnin from the Beetle!

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF: Let me try to give you an example. Let's say you wanted to open a strip club in your house.

The fact is, your neighbors have a right to vote on zoning issues, ie, whether or not stripping should be allowed on the block.

Second, the State has a right to determine whether or not stripping should be allowed at all, anywhere in the State. Perhaps this would be controversial on 1st Amendment grounds (one could argue that stripping is protected free expression). Since there are no 1st Amendment issues involved with mining, the public is entitled to regulate as it sees fit. Accordingly, the better comparison, for mining, is prostitution. It has benefits, FOR SURE(!), but there are public health issues involved.

Finally, if your neighbors decided to regulate and prevented you from opening a brothel, they would not have to pay you - why should the people have to pay to exercise their democratic rights?

Oh Golden Beetle...

How can you win a debate when you keep changing it? AHHHH....

But, I'll play along.

Your analogy to stripping is comparing apples to, well, melons. The people OWN the rights to the gas below ground on their property. If the state were to deny their access to liberate the gas, the lawsuits would be fast, furious and the state would lose. SO,

The state will not outlaw drilling.

Can the state regulate it? Absolutely. They have an obligation to ensure that it is done in a safe manner. Given that it IS safe... A big given, I know, if the good people of the state somehow think that a certain area is "special" they should be willing to compensate landowners to NOT drill. NYC has set a precedent in protecting their watershed by buying land around the reservoirs to protect their water supply(as well as compensating landowners through conservation easements) AT FAIR MARKET VALUE. Why would they NOT pay fair market value to compensate those who commit to NOT drilling?

NOW, back to the question you keep avoiding for some reason...

Why wouldn't a conservationist want to save a piece of heaven by selling their home in an environmental disaster area and buying a home in the Catskills and protecting a BIG chunk of nature?

You see, if enough of them did this, maybe they could vote on zoning laws that would somehow prohibit drilling?

 

[golden beetle]

Let's talk my friend, Future Fanatic.

A woman owns her body, but she can't sell it openly on the market.

You own your property, but if the State said you could not drill there, all the State need show is that its regulation of mining - a commercial activity - is rationally related to some legitimate State interest.

If the State of New York decided that drilling should be outlawed, you are absolutely WRONG - any lawsuit that you filed seeking to stop enforcement of such legislarion would lose miserably.

All the State need establish is some legitmate State interest that is related to thw legislation outlawing drilling - that'd be very easy to do. Overwhelming precedent shows that the states can regulate such activity without any significant challenge by landowners. While I am not pretending to be a NY lawyer, common sense, wisdom, and a little research shows my view to better reflect reality thab yours.

Whatsayyou?

 

[golden beetle]

Future Fanatic: you have been defeated.

I have just talked to the Master Debator, and he says for you to give up the debate and perhaps apologize for making me type.

BEETLE! ALL HAIL THE Golden BEETLE!

 

[Kilgour Farms]

Article 23-0301 of the Environmental Conservation Law where it is stated:


It is hereby declared to be in the public interest to regulate the
development, production and utilization of natural resources of oil and
gas in this state in such a manner as will prevent waste; to authorize
and to provide for the operation and development of oil and gas
properties in such a manner that a greater ultimate recovery of oil and
gas may be had, and that the correlative rights of all owners and the
rights of all persons including landowners and the general public may be
fully protected, and to provide in similar fashion for the underground
storage of gas, the solution mining of salt and geothermal,
stratigraphic and brine disposal wells.

dSGEIS Table of Contents

Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Click on XI Alternatives

 

[Future Fanatic]

Let's talk my friend, Future Fanatic.

All the State need establish is some legitmate State interest that is related to thw legislation outlawing drilling - that'd be very easy to do.

Whatsayyou?

I'd say you are dreaming.

I'll say that NYS will NOT outlaw drilling for gas.

Therefore, if that is the entirety of your argument, it is moot.

How about that question of mine...? People are starting to wonder...

 

[golden beetle]

FF: You made an argument about lawsuits. You said that is the State of New York decided to outlaw drilling, landowners would sue the State. You said that the State would be defeated in court.

I corrected your mistake in this regard - the opposite is, in fact, true. The State coukd decide to outlaw drilling in the Catskills, and such regulation would almost certainly be upheld as constitutional in any court of law. Perhaps a real lawyer could chime in on this, to establish who is correct on this issue? Common sense says it is me, FF, yes it does!

Now, FF, the State may not pass such legislation, but an attempt to write your state senators and congressmen on the issue is perhaps a good step if any of you feel strongly about the issue.

Don't be talked out of exercising your rights - you don't have to live in the catskills to have an interest in its well being.

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF: You said that is the State of New York decided to outlaw drilling, landowners would sue the State.

No I didn't. I posted:

If the state were to deny their access to liberate the gas, the lawsuits would be fast, furious and the state would lose.

If the state decided that they needed to "conserve" the Catskills, then a determination as to whether or not private properties were devalued would take place. If the state "took" away their value ( which most certainly they would (for most properties)based upon the values of these leases(mineral rights) ) then the State would be on the hook for reimbursement.

You said that the State would be defeated in court.

No, I said they would lose. Yes, they would need to pay a lot of landowners.

I corrected your mistake in this regard - the opposite is, in fact, true. The State coukd decide to outlaw drilling in the Catskills, and such regulation would almost certainly be upheld as constitutional in any court of law. Perhaps a real lawyer could chime in on this, to establish who is correct on this issue? Common sense says it is me, FF, yes it does!

I'd like a lawyer to chime in.

Now, FF, the State may not pass such legislation, but an attempt to write your state senators and congressmen on the issue is perhaps a good step if any of you feel strongly about the issue.

If it ever came up, I'm sure they'll do the right thing.

Don't be talked out of exercising your rights - you don't have to live in the catskills to have an interest in its well being.

Absolutely true. Have an interest.

Which brings me to ask, Again... (I know it scares you, but... try answering this... you'll feel better if you do...)

Why wouldn't a conservationist want to save a piece of heaven by selling their home in an environmental disaster area and buying a home in the Catskills and protecting a BIG chunk of nature?

Come on... you know you WANT to....

 

[golden beetle]

My friend, future fanatic, I would like to end the debate at this.

You stated that if New York were to outlaw drilling, that it would be on the hook for some kind of compensatory damages.

Now, let's say the State paid you compensation for the fair market value of the remaining natural gas on your property. I think that's what you want to happen.

Then, imagine in 10 years that the State were to decide that the need for natural gas was greater than any environmental harm that drilling could possibly do, and repealed the abolition of drilling.

In that case, would you get paid again for your gas, this time by a private corporation?

Just to set the record straight, I think it is unlikely that the State would need to pay you anything if the State did not actually TAKE your minerals, but simply outlawed their extraction for the purpose of regulating commerce in such minerals.

FF, you may be right that the harm done by drilling is minimal and that such drilling should be allowed.

I also agree that the harm done by private contracts between drilling companies and landowners are likely less of an issue to the environment than, say, drilling on State land.

Finally, no hard feelings about this, and my sincerest hope that you do well financially through any arrangement you have negotiated for your mineral rights.

 

[golden beetle]

Now that this thread is OVER, its time for Andy B to show up to the KLG!!!

I am waiting for Andy B! Humuliate me at the KLG!!

Aint no dry fly fisherman in the world who can beat a streamer in late November!

Or is there just 1? Yes, there's one, and he's the Beetle! I'm gonna kick your streamer slinging ass if you have the balls to show up at KLG, Andy B!

 

[Future Fanatic]

My friend, future fanatic, I would like to end the debate at this.

You stated that if New York were to outlaw drilling, that it would be on the hook for some kind of compensatory damages.

Now, let's say the State paid you compensation for the fair market value of the remaining natural gas on your property. I think that's what you want to happen.

Then, imagine in 10 years that the State were to decide that the need for natural gas was greater than any environmental harm that drilling could possibly do, and repealed the abolition of drilling.

In that case, would you get paid again for your gas, this time by a private corporation?

Just to set the record straight, I think it is unlikely that the State would need to pay you anything if the State did not actually TAKE your minerals, but simply outlawed their extraction for the purpose of regulating commerce in such minerals.

FF, you may be right that the harm done by drilling is minimal and that such drilling should be allowed.

I also agree that the harm done by private contracts between drilling companies and landowners are likely less of an issue to the environment than, say, drilling on State land.

Finally, no hard feelings about this, and my sincerest hope that you do well financially through any arrangement you have negotiated for your mineral rights.

It's not over 'til you step up and answer that question...

A lawyer had something to say that might be germane...

...people have a right to contract freely, and a right to dispose of their property however they want (with some limitations). It's a cornerstone principle of American property law that courts will uphold. The government can restrict use to some extent, but if the government restricts people's rights to use their land too much, it implicates the 5th Amendment and becomes a "taking." The 5th Amendment says that property may not be taken without "just compensation." When a government regulation limits a property owner so much that his/her land is diminished in value beyond a certain point, the government regulation becomes a taking and the government must pay just compensation.

Now that was aout a year ago and he was not a lawyer YET, but since, has made the grade.

Now about the question you're afraid of... I'll post it in GOLD in your honor(or is that a dark YELLOW)
Why wouldn't a conservationist want to save a piece of heaven by selling their home in an environmental disaster area and buying a home in the Catskills and protecting a BIG chunk of nature?

 

[golden beetle]

FF; You are a good guy, and I hope you are also a wealthy man, growing wealthier by the second through the "liberation" of your "gas."

If the State does not take your mineral rights, but instead simply outlaws drilling based on the outcome of a democratic deliberation, that is not a taking! They have taken nothing. The act of deliberation by your representatives, in state government, satisfies your due process rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The act of deliberation in Congress satisfies your due process rights guaranteed by the 5th amendment.

You gotta just admit defeat dude. FF, you is in way over your head wit da Beetle!

 

[dcabarle]

I'm very distraught by this debate between the two of you. I've been reading and reading and reading but I can't seem to find the name calling. What gives? It makes the thread so un-interesting. How is this going to fit into my book? Can the two of you give someone the amo to attack me, please?!?! I'm the one who owns the website, therefore I should be responsible for everything that comes out of your mouths. You with me here, nibblet nuts? Ohhh... before I forget.... "".... I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea.

 

[golden beetle]

Dcabarle, I hope you have a good Thanksgiving.

Truth be told, this is not a debate. I am merely clearing up FF's misunderstandings of the American way.

He seems to believe that democratic decisionmaking is reserved only to corporations and property holders. While this may be a republican's wet dream, it aint the American way as I understand it, nor is it the tradition of Republicans from Lincoln to Reagan.

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF; You are a good guy, and I hope you are also a wealthy man, growing wealthier by the second through the "liberation" of your "gas."

If the State does not take your mineral rights, but instead simply outlaws drilling based on the outcome of a democratic deliberation, that is not a taking! They have taken nothing. The act of deliberation by your representatives, in state government, satisfies your due process rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment. The act of deliberation in Congress satisfies your due process rights guaranteed by the 5th amendment.

You gotta just admit defeat dude. FF, you is in way over your head wit da Beetle!

BOY, that SOUNDS great...

Where's the good DOCTOR when we need him? I mean how could he be so wrong? He passed that big test thing and all...

How about THE question Yellow Beetle (no offense, that was just to placate Dickbarle, the owner)?

BTW, When you write:
The act of deliberation in Congress satisfies your due process rights guaranteed by the 5th amendment.

Are you saying that the Federal government will be making this decision to ban drilling?

 

[golden beetle]

FF: you are smarter than I gave you credit for..

When the Constitution was agreed to by the original 13 states, the Bill of Rights was included. The b of r's refers to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

The 5th Amendment restricts the federal govt from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law. The 5th Amendment, however, did not apply to the states. Until the end of the Civil War, the states were able to take life, liberty and property WITHOUT due process of law.

After the Civil War, Congress passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. The 14th amendment prevents the states from taking life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Thus, if we are talking about federal legislation, due process is protected by the 5th amendment. If we are taling about state legislation, we are talking about 14th amendment protections.

On the question of mining, the state (or federal) government could decide to restrict drilling. If the state did not actually take your mineral rights, but instead prevented you from accessing such minerals, this would not be a taking of the sort that dr gonzo makes reference to. Instead, it would be either a regulation of commerce or otherwise a regulation to promote the public welfare that would require no compensation to those affected by the regulation.

Perhaps gonzo should chime in to bring the air of legal authority to the issue, as we are both amateurs.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Perhaps gonzo should chime in to bring the air of legal authority to the issue, as we are both amateurs.

Well, let us hope he will drop the turkey leg to give us a moment of his time.

But while we wait, why don't you fill the time with an answer to a simple question?


Why wouldn't a conservationist want to save a piece of heaven by selling their home in an environmental disaster area and buying a home in the Catskills and protecting a BIG chunk of nature?

 

[golden beetle]

Gonzo, where are you?

C'mon, we could use the opinion of a lawyer on this, even if the lawyer has baboon level intelligence.

 

[Future Fanatic]

Gonzo, where are you?

C'mon, we could use the opinion of a lawyer on this, even if the lawyer has baboon level intelligence.

GB, you've had three days to come up with an answer to THAT question that could have entertained us while the Good DR. got back from his vacation...

 

[golden beetle]

FF: I'm not sure why the question is relevant.

Am I supposed to guess why conservationists don't leave the city and move to the catskills?

I guess that I am one of those people, so let me try to explain why I am not living in the catskills.

My job is in the bronx. My girlfriend works in the city too.

She's not ready to go. I don't insist upon it.

Good answer?

 

[Future Fanatic]

FF: I'm not sure why the question is relevant.

Am I supposed to guess why conservationists don't leave the city and move to the catskills?

I guess that I am one of those people, so let me try to explain why I am not living in the catskills.

My job is in the bronx. My girlfriend works in the city too.

She's not ready to go. I don't insist upon it.

Good answer?

No, that is the perfect answer (and probably similar to the most common answer given by so called conservationists who do not live in (or close to)the places that they want to protect).

 

[MACFLY]

FF: I'm not sure why the question is relevant.

Am I supposed to guess why conservationists don't leave the city and move to the catskills?

I guess that I am one of those people, so let me try to explain why I am not living in the catskills.

My job is in the bronx. My girlfriend works in the city too.

She's not ready to go. I don't insist upon it.

Good answer?

GB while I know you feel you are being humorous I think this question can be posted under asked and answered. 370k is a pittance to a good number of left wing folks in the city. They could own a slice of the Catskills and prevent drilling at the same time. I dont think anyone expects you to move there but the question is an interesting one and a few folks have already responded with their thoughts. BTW..I thought you had your woman in check..sounds like she is wearing the pants in the family

 

[golden beetle]

No macfly, it really isn't an interesting question. Are you seriouslyly wondering whyleft wing folks don't buy up all the drmineral rich land in the catskills? Are you serious?

You really are serious, I think, and I am not going to help you to your answer.

One question for you: do you know anything about Pebble Mine? Are you against it? If so, why don't you outbid the mining companies for the mining rights, and not make use of the natural resources.

Cmon man. Let's say the left wing folks bought up the land - they couldn't sell it as an investment, right? Because then someone could start drilling.

So, you are asking a chicken and the egg type question. In effect, you want people like me to spend billions of dollars to preserve land. You want us to give our money away, essentially, bc once we own we can't sell, otherwise we risk the goal of our enterprise.

So you ask, why don't people with money give it all away? Well, if they did, these rich folks wouldn't be rich, would they? They'd have already given their money away to some other worthy cause.

 

[mbwmn]

<snipped some>

Why wouldn't a conservationist want to save a piece of heaven by selling their home in an environmental disaster area and buying a home in the Catskills and protecting a BIG chunk of nature?

-Not all conservationists live in 'environmental disaster area(s)'.

-Not all conservationists have money. (I have to work hard for mine, and the new government is spending it much faster than I can make it.)

-I prefer clean porta-johns, but it doesn't mean I want to buy them all (even if I worked hard enough to afford them).

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Hey Guys, Sorry for not chiming in. My computer has been bluescreening and I've been busy entertaining my little cousins for the past few days so I haven't been able to write a worthwhile response. I'll post some baboonish answers to the legal issues tomorrow between bites from my turkey leg.

 

[MACFLY]

No macfly, it really isn't an interesting question. Are you seriouslyly wondering whyleft wing folks don't buy up all the drmineral rich land in the catskills? Are you serious?

You really are serious, I think, and I am not going to help you to your answer.

One question for you: do you know anything about Pebble Mine? Are you against it? If so, why don't you outbid the mining companies for the mining rights, and not make use of the natural resources.

Cmon man. Let's say the left wing folks bought up the land - they couldn't sell it as an investment, right? Because then someone could start drilling.

So, you are asking a chicken and the egg type question. In effect, you want people like me to spend billions of dollars to preserve land. You want us to give our money away, essentially, bc once we own we can't sell, otherwise we risk the goal of our enterprise.

So you ask, why don't people with money give it all away? Well, if they did, these rich folks wouldn't be rich, would they? They'd have already given their money away to some other worthy cause.

GB dont get your girdle in a bunch. The question was specific to one piece of land. Its not about buying up the whole of the Catskills which by the way isnt all for sale Furthermore as i have stated previously there are plenty of folks..and I dont mean plenty for which this would be a drop in the bucket.

Pebble Mine..yes I know all about Pebble Mine. Yes I am against Pebble Mine...now you are trying to make a comparison between apples and apricots...I dont even need to elaborate on that topic. It should be self explanatory even to you. BTW is the misses letting you stay up tonight...Just kidding GB.. Go get some sleep

 

[MACFLY]

-Not all conservationists live in 'environmental disaster area(s)'.

-Not all conservationists have money. (I have to work hard for mine, and the new government is spending it much faster than I can make it.)

-I prefer clean porta-johns, but it doesn't mean I want to buy them all (even if I worked hard enough to afford them).

Yes well the question wasnt meant for you. I assumed you werent rich..but that being said there are plenty of folks in NYC that are and could easily afford this one property. BTW if you had only purchase that Apple stock you probably could have this property and oh so much more

 

[Future Fanatic]

No macfly, it really isn't an interesting question. Are you seriouslyly wondering whyleft wing folks don't buy up all the drmineral rich land in the catskills? Are you serious?.

From your viewpoint, maybe it's not an interesting question.

From mine, your answer is MORE than interesting; I feel it is honest and representative of what most environmentally minded people would say...

I want to point out, I never said they had to buy up ALL of the land they find special. I posed the question as to why A conservationist would NOT want to sell his real estate in a environmentally spoiled area for the chance to save a piece of this "special" place.

As you stated, the reason YOU don't, is an economic one.

Is that a fair representation of your answer?