Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,803
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3211
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-05-2019 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: (09-05-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (09-05-2019 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (09-05-2019 06:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (09-05-2019 01:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: But of course, cheaper energy, lower expenses for Americans, and renewed dependence on Middle East oil must be very attractive to Kamala Harris.
Her climate plan: "outright bans on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for oil and gas, and on offshore oil and gas drilling."
Also, "...she would consider changing dietary guidelines to reduce consumption of red meat, the production of which is responsible for a large portion of the world’s planet-warming emissions. She even said she would consider a national ban on plastic straws, while conceding that paper straws are trickier to sip from. "
Wow, how is she going to enforce these "dietary guidelines"? Make hamburger illegal? Meatless Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in our schools? Raise taxes on cattle? She does not say.
I don't care about the straws. Paper is OK with me. Made from trees, right?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...i51#page=2
Completely disagree with Harris regarding an outright ban on fracking and offshore drilling.
I understand, and agree with, enforcing regulations that limit where fracking can take place. I’ve seen sites located within neighborhoods in Colorado and I can’t imagine being a homeowner that all of a sudden has a major drilling operation pop up next door, for a number of reasons. But when it is implemented correctly, fracking provides tremendous value and doesn’t pose a significant environmental risk.
Until we can completely remove ourselves from fossil fuels, the idea of banning their extraction and use is unrealistic. But I completely support not throwing our full weight behind the exploration and extraction in every place across the country.
Before I signed my O&G lease, I studied the situation and worked with a group of other landowners. We negotiated better leases which, among other things, gave us the right to dictate where wells would be drilled. Without that, the exploration company could have placed a rig in my living room, and I heard stories of oil drillers doing just that. Sounds to me like those people in Colorado just saw $$$$ and signed without thinking.
But specifically to fracking, that is 3-4 days for lots of noise, lots of dust, lots of vehicles, lots of people, then nothing. Without fracking, that hole is just a hole. I could stand it for 3-4 days. The O&G company offered to move some people to hotels for the fracking. I did not go.
In Colorado, the issue hasn't been with people signing leases and then being annoyed that an oil well popped up on their property. The issue is that the oil rig popped up on the property right next door, that someone else owns and that they have no say over.
It's basically a zoning issue.
Actually its not. The rules are very specific drilling and operator rules set out by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
There are rules covering minimum tract size, minimum offset, and even noise and visual aesthetics. The only thing that it really lacks is having setbacks from property lines (i.e. lease lines).
And, zoning can deny any operations on a tract there. Most developers in oil producing regions pre-form the pooling agreement prior to development and include the issue within the deed restrictions and platting.
Sounds to me that the issue you speak of was in an older area that lacked this planning, and met the tract requirements for a minimum lease size.
And bluntly, absent an agreement amongst the landowners, what one landowner does with his property is their business. For example, one of my neighbors on a tract has massive amounts of mesquite and garbage cacti on his side of the line. No matter how destructive or annoying that they may be, I am powerless to keep him from doing that. Along with the massive amount of metal junk stacked along the property line. But that is the definition of private property, which cuts both ways.
What appears to be the applicable part of the COGCC spacing rules:
"318. LOCATION OF WELLS
"All wells drilled for oil or gas to a common source of supply shall have the following setbacks:
"a. Wells 2,500 feet or greater in depth. A well to be drilled two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet or greater shall be located not less than six hundred (600) feet from any lease line, and shall be located not less than one thousand two hundred (1,200) feet from any other producible or drilling oil or gas well when drilling to the same common source of supply, unless authorized by order of the Commission upon hearing.
"b. Wells less than 2,500 feet in depth. A well to be drilled to less than a depth of two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet below the surface shall be located not less than two hundred (200) feet from any lease line, and not less than three hundred (300) feet from any other producible oil or gas well, or drilling well, in said source of supply, except that only one producible oil or gas well in each such source of supply shall be allowed in each governmental quarter-quarter section unless an exception under Rule 318.c. is obtained."
I've never had any dealings with Colorado wells. I mostly dealt with offshore, probably closest was in Moxa Arch, Wyoming, or San Juan Basin, New Mexico, so I'm not an authority on this. That's just what I could look up with a quick search.
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2019 09:16 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
|
|