Thursday, May 19, 2011

UPDATE: Williams vs. Flower Mound – Round 3

We have been told the Town will be protesting the Rule 37. Thanks to Council Member Filidoro for speaking with us on the phone this morning.

First it was a CCF, then a pipeline easement. Learning nothing from the first two engagements, Williams is now attempting to steal minerals from the Town of Flower Mound. Williams has applied for a Rule 37 on Town owned property near the water treatment plan, Town Fleet Service Center, and Bakersfield Park. The proposed well will be drilled from Williams “Ace” pad site, which is located in Lewisville.

A protest from the Town of Flower Mound and the associated hearing at the Railroad Commission in Austin is likely. Due to severe budget constraints at the RRC, no retiring staff or open positions are currently being filled, causing a backlog of work for the resource starved regulatory agency.

If a protest is filed by the Town of Flower Mound, Williams will have 3 choices.

1) Abandon the well.
2) Proceed with a hearing in Austin.
3) Shorten their well lateral to not encroach on Town owned minerals

Option 1 is unlikely. Option 2 means more bad press for Williams in Flower Mound. Option 3 is the most likely as it allows them to drill the lion share of their proposed lateral run and avoid the bad press which will likely ensue if they move forward with the Rule 37.

The Town has until June 1st, Close-of-Business to file a protest, otherwise the application will be approved administratively by the Texas Railroad Commission.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hope Williams is not successful. All we need is fracking under Bakersfield Park!!! What a nightmare!

Anonymous said...

If fracking chemicals somehow get into the water at the water treatment plant, how would anyone know? Even if the fracking fluid disclosure bill goes through, drillers can still get an exemption for their "trade secret" formulae. There's no way to test for the hundreds of chemicals that could possibly be used. Spilliams has to be stopped!

Anonymous said...

Wow. This seems like a very short timeframe for the town to respond. Plus, I believe there is not much to stop a driller from stealing gas from property that did not give consent. Who would know? How would you prove?

Anonymous said...

Someone please fire the Williams PR person, they do not deserve WHATEVER they get paid.

Anonymous said...

I could have sworn I read on the Williams website how ethical they are, apparently stealing what doesn't belong to you is now "ethical" according to Williams.

Anonymous said...

Please publish the link where we can monitor or track these issues.

FMCAUD said...

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/index.php

Anonymous said...

Talk about a "taking."

Anonymous said...

Titan Operating also filed on on the City of Lewisville. Lewisville has already protested and the hearing is pending. Maybe Williams and Titan can get together and share notes on how to screw local municipalities. I mean, being such good neighbors and all.

Anonymous said...

I hate to keep beating a dead horse here but I have to ask. How many Rule 37 exceptions would be needed with a 2 mile (long distance drilling) lateral in an urban area like ours?
These gas companies shorten their laterals so it doesn't look like a lot of residents and landowners are protesting.
Just look at the TRRC site and you can see how many times they amend a permit when requesting a Rule 37 exception.

Anonymous said...

They shorten the laterals in urban areas because they rarely can find a path that is very long without a possible "tresspass" issue since they cannot drill directly under an unleased tract. They can only try to frack under an unleased track. (i.e. Rule 37) That's why long distance drilling is not viable in most urban areas unless you get the vast majority to sign leases along the entire lateral. In Flower Mound, that is nearly impossible. You are correct though, in that situation, they would attempt to take more minerals without a lease, further trampling in individual property rights.

Anonymous said...

I believe a rule 37 allows the driller to drill up to the property line of an unleased track. It does not allow them to drill or frack an unleased track - that would be forced pooling. Forced pooling is completely different. I know the differences don't seem important but they are.

Anonymous said...

@ anon May 20, 2011 1:05 PM
You can frack under an unleased track if you have an approved Rule 37 permit. The well bore itself cannot traverse an unleased property, that is a physical tresspass. The problem lies in the fact that you don't know how far with fracture and stimulation of a well, the fracture points will reach. Since typical between well spacing is about 500 feet, it is fairly resonable to assume that it goes a minimum of 250 feet, but many experts will tell you it can go much further than that, depending upon a whole litany of variables.

Anonymous said...

Also, forced pooling would allow a driller's actual wellbore to traverse a previously unleased track, unlike a Rule 37 which does not, but may allow minerals to be drained from the property.

Anonymous said...

SWR 37 mandates that an oil and gas operator has to stay 467 feet away from any competitor's lease or unleased properties.

Exception to Rule 37, the operator is requesting to drill within the 467 feet, usually in urban areas and/or lands restricted by the local governments.

Does anybody know the answer if the operator has to pay royalties to the mineral rights' owner if they are granted the exception to SWR 37 by the TRRC?

Anonymous said...

@Anon May 20, 2011 5:45 PM
In the Barnett, there are special "field rules" set by the Commission that allow the operator to come within 330' feet of a tract or lease line. No, the operator does not have to pay any monies to the unleased mineral owner IF the Rule 37 exception is granted. In Texas, a mineral owner cannot seek redress for past drainage, their "remedy" is to drill their own well to recover the hydrocarbons. In this case however, most people who have not signed a lease want to assert their private property right NOT to harvest their minerals.

Anonymous said...

Question for Anon May 20, 10:27 p.m. In March of this year, there was talk of the TRRC including Non-perforation zones (NPZ) as part of SWR 37. Did that ever occur?

Also, Anon May 19, 9:04 p.m. makes an interesting statement. If Williams were to be granted the exception to SWR 37, could the Town sue for a "takings," as what Ron Hilliard threatened at the Titan Powell Unit hearing before the Oil and Gas Board of Appeals on December 15, 2010, or is "takings" only a surface land use violation under the Fifth Admendment of the Constitution?

Both Titan and Keystone have current "takings" and "capricious" lawsuits against the Town. You would think that goes both ways, since Williams wants to "take" the Town's minerals. It also appears to be a retaliatory whim on Williams' part due to the resistance they have encoutered in Flower Mound.

Anonymous said...

NPZ's have always been included in Rule 37's (at least as long as I've been following this). Frankly, specifically on the topic of well spacing, I have less issue with them because if they do no encroach on unsigned property, they are at least attempting to protect individual property rights. I'm no lawyer (thank goodness) but my reading of the law seems to suggest that the "taking" language only applies to governmental authority. i.e. cities and not private entities like Williams, although I see your clear logic. Furthermore, it applies only in the case of compenation for the value of minerals NOT able to be produced as opposed to visa versa. As far as it being retaliation, I think they would have done that same thing no matter how much or little resistance they have seen in ths past.

Anonymous said...

On a related topic, Tom Corbett, Republican gov of Penn. has come out against the practice of force pooling.

Anonymous said...

From the RRC website:
"UPLOADED PROTEST FROM HARLAN JEFFERSON REPRESENTING TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND TEXAS 05/23/2011 11:23:12 AM RRC STAFF"