Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on July 4, 2010 at 16:01

Coal sucks!!!!!!!!!! gas burns clean-gas is green

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on July 4, 2010 at 17:08

In DeSoto and Red River Parishes lignite is also being mined at the same time Haynesvills Shale natural gas is being produced. Competing energy companies are urged to work out early-on drilling locations where both types of natural resources can be developed with minimum interference to each other. According to the Commissioner of Conservation in Louisiana, this is working very well. With GPS technology, the compaines know "exactly where they are" all of the time. Good luck. Enjoy both of your royalty checks. Besides, lignite is not nearly as dirty as other forms od coal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Beck on July 5, 2010 at 4:16

Thanks for replying, my concern is there are over 30 wells in one patch. Thats a lot they will be trying to step around. Then when you throw in all the pipe lines, don't know how they will be able to strip mine that area with out capping and coming back later and re-drill. If they do that will they have to re-lease. Still a lot of Oil & Gas in East Texas.

PS: Jack Blake I agree but if the want to pay me for it, well ole Jesse will take there money and spend it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on July 5, 2010 at 5:07

Your points are certainly valid ones. To properly develop both resources takes planning ahead and cooperation between the different companies. I am not too sure how this would work in TX, but in LA, the Commissioner of Conservation regulates both industries (lignite and natural gas), and requiring the parties to reach voluntary greement has worked so far. In Texas, I suggest you contact the Railroad Commission to get their comments on this issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Blake on July 5, 2010 at 15:03

Jack Blake would also take their money. Oh yeah! Jack can't imagine them temporarily abandoning wells to mine coal.
Jack leased for oil and gas. He kept his other mineral rights.
Jack wishes he would have had a better depth clause. Jack reserved from the base of the Cotton Valley to the surface. Jack should have also reserved from the base of the Haynesville to the center of the earth.
As ur dern tootin' said, the different companies would have to work together.
What good problems to have!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on July 5, 2010 at 15:34

Hey Jack, your depth reservation is a good one. Lignite and O&G can exist together.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by robert minton on July 7, 2010 at 14:29

they won't strip-mine. will just pass you bye.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 5, 2010 at 16:08

"Besides, lignite is not nearly as dirty as other forms of coal."

Hmmm.... I always though that lignite was dirtier than other firms of coal because it's less "refined" and the percentage of pure carbon is lower. It's got more "trash" in it.

I'm actually pro-coal, but strip mining absolutely devastates the land until many years after the mining is finished.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on July 5, 2010 at 16:16

I drive by the power plant around Mansfield every now and then and never have seen something other than vapor expelled from the stacks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on July 5, 2010 at 16:47

Lignite is less polluting than other (high sulfur) bituminous forms of coal. But since the BTU content of lignite is less, more lignite is needed to do the job. And land is returned to a good post-mining land use. Normally it takes about 5-years after mining and surface recontouring for the land to meet post-mining standards. I think lignite mining has probably the most stringent standards and requirements of most any other energy extracting industry.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on July 7, 2010 at 4:18

I've been to many areas that were once lignite mines in LA and east TX. Somtimes the land is actually in better shape and much prettier after restoration.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 7, 2010 at 12:02

I'm in favor of lignite and other coal mining and use. Let's use the energy that the US has instead of buying oil from terrorist states and destroying our economy, until we develop non-fossil fuel energy sources.

Almost everything I've read indicates that lignite is more polluting than most other forms of coal, especially the low-sulfur coal from Wyoming that most plants around here tend to use. Maybe there is some coal that has high sulfur and is dirtier to burn than lignite.

Of course, there's so much BS in the discussion of coal, global warming, strip mining, etc. that it's difficult to figure out where the truth lies.

Yes, they may restore the land back to good condition after the mining takes place. I'm just pointing out that it's really nasty, ugly, and devastating while the mining takes place. You definitely don't want to be anywhere near a lignite mine while it's in operation.

I want lignite mining to be done. I just don't want to live near it. If I were considering leasing for lignite mining, I'd plan on moving away from the area being mined for the period of time it's being mined and several years after.

If you're considering leasing for coal mining, or if there are going to be a mine near you, realize it will be a terrible place until mining ceases and the remediation efforts are done with.

In terms of seeing what comes out of the smokestacks of a power plant, the stuff that's bad for humans and the environment is mostly colorless and odorless. Even if you see "smoke," what you see is just the water vapor, not the CO2, NOx, mercury, sulfur dioxide, or other dangerous pollutions that are there in some degree even in the cleanest plants. I've read that the cleaner coal plants actually produce more visible smoke because the scrubbing process ends up adding water to the exhaust gas and you see the steam.

There's a coal fired power plant in LaGrange, Texas with 3 generating units. The newer, cleaner unit produces more visible smoke due to the water vapor, despite the lower pollutant levels. (Or so the operator, LCRA claims.)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page