Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on December 19, 2009 at 10:24

I'm sure the operators are laughing their Rolexes off at the idea that they've convinced anyone that $1,500 per well matters at all. $15,000 wouldn't really matter to anyone considering drilling a well.

What will matter is regulation, requiring cleanup, not damaging roads, noise, pollution, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 20, 2009 at 5:46

Here, Mac, this (baseline ambient noise study for S'port/BC) just popped up in the news this morning. 80)

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20091220/NEWS01/912200312/1060

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 19, 2009 at 11:31

Thanks, guys. What about smaller operators? The article mentions some impact, though it wasn't specific. BTW, I'm sure of at least one council member that probably has a pretty good idea about drilling, and is probably up to speed on urban drilling.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on December 19, 2009 at 12:07

Is anyone drilling wells in Shreveport city limits that don't cost more than $1 million each? Are they going to notice a 0.15% cost increase?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 19, 2009 at 16:04

The timidity of the City of Shreveport and Mr. Strong would be laughable if it weren't so sad. The urban drilling fee should be $100,000 per well. The poor mouthing we get from the industry through the likes of Mr. Briggs (President, LA. Oil & Gas Association) trips my trigger. Imagine him taking a tour of torn up parish roads in DeSoto Parish and exclaiming to DeSoto Police Jurors, "I had no idea that O&G related traffic was causing so much damage". Yeah, right. I call BS! The City should not prohibit drilling, directly or indirectly, they should receive a fee commensurate with the costs to inspect, monitor and repair the damage caused by urban drilling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 19, 2009 at 16:48

Other than the Goldco wells drilled at the regional airport, how many wells have been drilled inside the city limits in the last ten years? I imagine the total number is quite small. And that smaller operators have little interest in urban well locations. The means of indemnifying the municipal government from damage caused by drilling and related development activities is of little consequence as long as the bond, fee, or damage deposit is adequate to cover the cost of mitigation and over sight and deter companies from unprofessional behavior.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 19, 2009 at 18:15

Maybe not inside city limits yet (drilling), but they have been skirting the city, been using E. Kings' Hwy., for some operations already. Right now, in S. Caddo, I see heavy traffic coming off 3132 onto F. Lucas in the am and afternoons. They head south on Hwy. 1 to the activity there.

This article really doesn't do an adequate job of detailing to what these fees are applied. Is it just to cover expenses of processing paperwork, or to cover liability for damages?

Electro might have a good point about bonds. I would think that would make liability & compensation align with any damages as opposed to a blank check to do limitless damage through a flat fee. I'm not sure if this is indeed in place. How best to measure the $$$ of a fee, however, that is basically an advance of remunerations for damages against the activity required? Am I confusing two separate issues?

Wonder if the parish is considering fees, or already has them in place?

Thanks for input & help, guys. 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on December 19, 2009 at 19:07

Of course, I'm skeptical that any income from fees will be used to repair damage, prevent problems, provide for better inspection, or just be seen as free money to squander on some pet project.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 19, 2009 at 19:21

Skepticism duly noted, and seconded. lol 80)

• ▶ Reply