MrMustard
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 157
foxtrapper1972
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,455
These Marcellus guys will not let up until they get what they want. Real friendly, neighborly types are portrayed in commercials but they are actually ruthless and greedy bastards.
franklin
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,660
In reading the article two points come to mind that my research has indicated are not correct.
In researching the DCNR requirements several years ago I found requirements pertaining to drilling on public land such as state forests, state parks, SGLs, etc. That criteria was used for the initial selection of land available for the first leases and subsequent drilling. It was also used by Gov Rendell as the basis for his prohibition on further leasing. As far as I am aware those requirements are still in place.
My understanding of the "non-surface disturbance" claim is that wells would be drilled using existing well pads or well pads already leased but not yet drilled. Part of the idea is that pads placed on adjoining private lands could have additional wells drilled under state land not yet leased with little to no impact on those lands.
In researching the DCNR requirements several years ago I found requirements pertaining to drilling on public land such as state forests, state parks, SGLs, etc. That criteria was used for the initial selection of land available for the first leases and subsequent drilling. It was also used by Gov Rendell as the basis for his prohibition on further leasing. As far as I am aware those requirements are still in place.
My understanding of the "non-surface disturbance" claim is that wells would be drilled using existing well pads or well pads already leased but not yet drilled. Part of the idea is that pads placed on adjoining private lands could have additional wells drilled under state land not yet leased with little to no impact on those lands.
