My understanding of this process is that if the producers go horizontal under your property, they need your permission (a lease) to do it.
I'M WILLING TO ADMIT THAT THIS MAY NOT BE CORRECT. AGAIN, THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING (ONLY) OF THIS PROCESS. I'M NOT INSISTING THAT THIS IS CORRECT.
I'm pretty sure that's correct with respect to mineral rights. The danger is that the contaminants that actually scare people...the various natural gasses...when released they rise. The can hit slabs of bedrock on the way up and get pushed off to one side eventually ending up impacting places miles and miles away that never signed over their mineral rights at all.
I think that's the most worrisome part. If you release a pocket of trapped methane 10,000 feet below the surface, it's anybody's guess where that methane is eventually going to end up.
Methane is completely odorless and flavorless, purity depending of course. If it manages to enter a house through the groundwater, it can potentially be very dangerous.
I don't believe that we will have such a problem in NC though, our bedrock is not very porous, we don't have methane deposits above the primary layer of bedrock... but at the same time that makes the "methane popping up 50 miles away" problem that much more of an issue.
The thing that makes me so deeply concerned here, is that self-sufficiency is a precious precious thing. Once an area becomes dependent on the county or the supermarket for water, it becomes a lot easier to make them into slaves. That gives me serious pause.
I understand, fracking for natural gas in NC would lead to tens of thousands of jobs. I hate the idea of government telling citizens what they can and can not do with their own property.
On the other side of the coin, it has the potential to impact people who are simply not a part of a mineral rights (or land-use lease) contract at all, who may have wanted nothing to do with it, and now (assuming the worst) can no longer use their groundwater well and can drink only at the pleasure of the county or municipal water system.
And I'm not even touching the fluoride or lithium in municipal water question.
I want to know that my grandkids 100 years from now are not going to be forced to use someone else's water to survive, but can draw their own water out of the ground. If they are forced with no option to rely on the county or city to provide water to survive, then they can easily be made into slaves.
So the question is by no means simple. Even free market principles can point to both yes and no. Say I agree with property A and B, but then end up spewing all over property C, that's an aggressive act, whether intentional or accidental.
My complaint with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle is everybody treats fracking like it's all so damn simple and obvious. It's not. Republicans pretend like there can not possibly be a problem, and anybody who has concerns is just stupid. Democrats pretend like every time we have ever deployed fracking in America it has destroyed 100% of the environment in it's general area, and anybody who doesn't agree is just stupid.
It's way, way more complex and articulated than that. There is a very real danger, but it's not remotely as pervasive as some people think. Fracking could work very well in some areas, and may be a very bad idea in other areas.
I've done what I needed to do on SB709 to push it forward while trying to ensure safety, but I dread the next veto override vote because both the members and the electorate on both sides are blatantly oversimplifying the issue, and that's never helpful.
