Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by P.G. on August 26, 2008 at 4:22

What are they planning to do to protect the Aquifer from all the drilling?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on August 26, 2008 at 4:46

1. What steps have been, or will be, taken to ensure our water system is not consumed beyond fair use?

2. Does the Commissioner have the ability to issue an emergency injunction, should it be found that our water sources are in jeopardy.

3. Will there, are is there, a structure in which the average citizen can, or will be, notified of potential endangerment to the states water supply?

4. How will the operations taking place, or scheduled to take place, in northern Louisiana, effect the daily operations of business in southern Louisiana?

5. With an potential increase in activity, how will the DNR generate increasing revenue to cover the expense for monitoring of such activity?

6. Do you foresee an increase in taxation, as a means to cover any lack of revenue for operations?

7. How many new state employment opportunities do you estimate the haynesville shale will generate within the next 5-10 years?

8. Do you anticipate new departments (or sub offices) to be established, as a result of increased activity in northern Louisiana?

9. Will there be new resources made available, for the community to report suspicious activity, without burdening any existing system?

10. Do you anticipate any new regulations being introduced, directly related to the increased activity in northern Louisiana?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cillian on August 26, 2008 at 5:01

Allright, I'm having posting issues, let's try this again...re #6, are you referring to the potential strain on the current operating budget due to Haynesville-sized activity in on a pre-Haynesville budget?
And have you seen the DNR's most recent strategic plan (last updated July '07)? If not, I can attach/post it as a pdf.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grice on August 26, 2008 at 5:16

Yes, I am concerned that the current revenue plan will not cover the potential increase in demand for future possibilities. If not, and a need should arise, how will those expenses be generated into the budget?

I "glanced" at something covering coastal waters, but did not read it entirely. If that is the plan you are referring to, then how will it apply to non-coastal activity?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cillian on August 28, 2008 at 3:18

I'll attach it. It's the DNR's Strategic Plan for FY 08-09 to 12-13.

Attachments:

• dnr-strategic-plan-fy08-13.pdf, 1.8 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on August 26, 2008 at 4:54

What about a grievance board or department set up where citizens could take complaints of damages caused by drilling and they be investigated?
Most citizens do not have a chance against the financial advantages and batteries of lawyers the O&G companies have.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on August 26, 2008 at 5:13

With regard to the July 28, 2008 memorandum outlining the separation of shale and non-shale intervals henceforth from the date of the order absent "proof of exceptional circumstances":

1) Does the Commissioner plan to revise prior orders defining "Jurassic Zones" and redefining Cotton Valley and Lower Cotton Valley in order to bring said orders into compliance with the new directive?

2) Does the Commissioner intend to protect resources and segregate production from the shale and non-shale intervals by restricting downhole combination of shale and non-shale intervals, and requiring dual completions as to shale and non-shale intervals?

3) Given the low porosity and permeability of the HS interval, would the Commissioner entertain a reduction or restriction of unit size henceforth for vertical HS completions, versus the standard 640+/- acre spacing for a horizontal HS completions?

4) In more specific terms, please define acceptable rationales for "exceptional circumstances" as contemplated in the 7/28 memorandum.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by charles billingsley on August 26, 2008 at 6:09

Will the Commisioner approve a Haynesville unit of 640 acres that combines 160 acre pieces of 4 adjoining sections? If so, wouldn't that ruin the potential unitization of the balance (480 acres) of the sections?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 26, 2008 at 6:44

KB, I think I was writing at the same time as you so my post has some similar but not as well worded points as yours. I appreciate your strong input on these subjects and it is obvious you have taken note of the people that are left feeling like the inconsequential little guys. Thanks for your post

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 26, 2008 at 6:13

Could the commission give a more understandable description of what "forced pooling and unitizing" is and provide better oversite of the process so that small land owners and others that are force pooled will be able to know more certain what to expect sooner instead of after wells are drilled and completed?
examples;
RS 30:10 A (1)(a) All orders requiring pooling shall be made after notice and hearing.-- I feel that each affected landowner should get a certified letter letting them know this so there is documentation as to whether they received it or not.

RS 30:10 A (2)(a)(i) Any owner drilling or intending to drill a unit well..etc...may, by certified mail, etc...notify all other owners in the unit of the drilling.--I think that this should be changed to "Shall notify all other owners", this would help insure that ALL owners are involved.

RS 30:10 (2)(b)(i) Last sentence outlining owners cost says..,together with a risk charge, which risk charge shall be one hundred percent of such tract's share. There is alot of talk of a 200 percent charge now, so which is it, 100 or 200 %?

If the commission isn't diligent about enforcing these codes, many small landowners, especially landowners that live out of state and aren't as aware of what is going on, could be unaware of their opportunity to recover or receive their just and equitable share. Also, since according to RS 30:10 (2)(ii) Such election to participate must be exercised by mailing written notice to the owner drilling within 30 days after receipt of INITIAL notice; if the small landowner never receives the initial written notice, how can they know they are required to return notice by certified mail?
Also, perhaps the commission could help build up the state money bags by increasing the fines that have to be paid by these gas production companies, I don't know how old the codes are but $25.00 is absolutely rediculous as a fine to force companies to not leave the little guy out, I mean if it was going to save you millions would you be moved to abide by a $25.00 fine?
The same applies to the fines for holding production reports on wells like the Murray and Olympia and Messenger and others, the law with no bite in it encourages gas companies to withhold information while allowing their landmen more time to lowball landowners, some of which may be near desperation for the kind of funds involved in their share of bonus and production.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cillian on August 26, 2008 at 6:23

Great stuff, people! I see some recurring themes here that I will try to consolidate to get the most of your questions. Keep them coming!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DYST_JP on August 26, 2008 at 6:35

Cillian, read the post concerning ancient leases. Something needs to be done about old leases prior to unitization containing 4,000 acres creating situations where a landowner is held by production. This is not fair and can create a legal mess when trying to determine clear mineral title.

By all means ask about ground water usage, notification to the unleased mineral owner (forced pooling), and Fair expenses on well development to the unleased mineral owner who is forced pooled.

May want to periodically compose and post questions so that repeat questions will not be posted over and over again.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page