Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sesport on April 9, 2009 at 13:48

I'm concerned about the change/exceptions in setbacks. I'm understanding that there will be instances/exceptions where it will be allowed 200' from dwellings ... and it seems to carry over into some kind of change in the venting/flaring ... flaring will be allowed within 200' of a dwelling? Of course, in an urban situation, this should probably read dwellings - pluarl form.

Anyone understanding this differently?

Thanks Jay - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew Walker on April 9, 2009 at 15:13

I too agree that these environmental protections by the Office of Conservation are a step in the right direction, but it still does nothing to assure fair apportionment of the drilling/production. I'm sure property owners in these urban areas would also like to see fairness and balance in development between the various units...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on April 9, 2009 at 15:21

AW - Thanks ... although the environmental parts seem vague to me as stated, it's a start. Any thoughts about the change in distance from a dwelling?

No mention of fairness & balance in development ... they put it on the back burner for now, I guess? Of course, reading the blog from the DUG, it look like some companies intend to take their time & do it their own way, IMVHO. That might provide the time needed to get the grassroots movement moving!

Best - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Murrell on April 10, 2009 at 0:19

This looks OK to me. The DOC, which has primacy in these matters, needs to do this to get out in front of local government's efforts to regulate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on April 10, 2009 at 0:31

How do you understand the allowance to change re. setbacks from dwellings? I'm understanding that DOC is proposing to make exceptions to the 500' setback to allow something much closer ... 200".

Thanks for clarification - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on April 13, 2009 at 3:47

Group:

As I understand it, the proposed statewide order (or this administrative prelude to it) is for LOC to establish some uniform rules at the state level which will serve as a 'framework' under and attached to which the other parish and municipal statutes will coexist. The problem posed by the various and sundry municipal and parish ordinances is that the lack of consistent equal or coequal provisions across the HS area would be 'punched through' by any operator or lessee citing a hindrance or obstacle to development, or by an argument of 'the regulation of oil and gas development and production is a state issue (which it is, constitutionally) and the (parish, city, village) ordinance represents an overstepping of X's bounds into the proper regulation thereof.

The gist of these proposed regulations appear to have incorporated the Bossier and Caddo ordinances into its basic makeup. IMO, this represents a certain thoughtfulness of LOC towards crafting its statewide rules so as to not conflict with existing ordinances, rather than a co-opting of them or a menial powergrab.

There is no need for LOC to 'scramble' to keep control, they are the control (at least as to O&G regulation and development). If LOC were to refrain from putting regulations into effect, it would only serve to undermine the public interest by allowing operators to attempt to exploit this hole in court, or to mineral owner's detriment (as the prevention of the use of the mineral servitude by exploration or drilling activities by a governmental body (local, state, or otherwise) could constitute an obstacle for mineral servitude purposes, or trigger force majeure provisions in a leasing situation).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on April 13, 2009 at 3:54

Dion - Long time no see ... and thanks. I'm still confused about what it will mean by allowing drilling within 200' of a dwelling instead of the usual, and perhaps inadequate in urban areas. of 500 feet.

Anything you can offer in the way of an opinion would help.

Best - sesport :0)

• ▶ Reply