Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,811
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #41
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-05-2019 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.


I don't know Colorado law. In Texas that would not happen. You cannot lease just, say one building lot in a neighborhood and drill on it. It must be amalgamated with others into a tract of minimum size.

My GF has a house in a subdivision. An O&G company got homeowners in the area to sign leases, until they had enough enough to form a drilling allotment. Part of the agreement(s) was the location of the drilling. Today, she gets a $100 check several times a year for the royalties on her 1/3 acre lot. The drilling is out of sight and out of mind. In fact, we are not sure where the wells are.

Point remains: Drilling takes about three weeks, fracking 3-4 days. After that it is not a noise problem. No idea what is being done wrong in Colorado.

So sounds like you agree with me about restricting where oil and gas exploration activities can occur.

Good to hear that there are some regs restricting operations in Texas. My guess is that there are situations that would allow wells to be installed near residential areas, though, as I would be surprised if that platting issue would apply to the properties bounding a residential development.

Yes and no. hard to see where you get that from, unless it is just wishful thinking. This falls in my camp of "some restrictions are good, too much is bad".

If you want to see what the restrictions are designed to stop, look at old pictures of Kilgore.

http://www.texasescapes.com/EastTexasTow...-Texas.htm

The Railroad Commission is the managing agency in Texas.

Glad we can agree on something.

I'm certainly not advocating for all regulation with no thinking about the consequences, it's just that I often have different opinions about the risk/reward than y'all do.
09-05-2019 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fountains of Wayne Graham Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 288
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, drilling and fracking are two different things. But both are temporary.

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. In effect, we negotiated our own regulations. Didn't need no stinkin' government agency to protect us. But I guess, the government is there to protect the stupid from themselves, right?

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.

I think the point of the Warren plan is that she, like Harris and Beta and others, will propose anything that gets applause at rallies and votes in primaries, without regard to the actual merits of the action. A stupid proposal, supported by the stupid party.

Kudos to you for not marching in lockstep.

I'm not sure why you have to ruin a perfectly reasonable conversation with crap like this. Do you just hang out in The Quad to "own the libs"? Or do you this as a place for constructive and stimulating dialogue?

[Image: giphy.gif]
09-05-2019 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #43
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-05-2019 03:28 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, drilling and fracking are two different things. But both are temporary.

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. In effect, we negotiated our own regulations. Didn't need no stinkin' government agency to protect us. But I guess, the government is there to protect the stupid from themselves, right?

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.

I think the point of the Warren plan is that she, like Harris and Beta and others, will propose anything that gets applause at rallies and votes in primaries, without regard to the actual merits of the action. A stupid proposal, supported by the stupid party.

Kudos to you for not marching in lockstep.

I'm not sure why you have to ruin a perfectly reasonable conversation with crap like this. Do you just hang out in The Quad to "own the libs"? Or do you this as a place for constructive and stimulating dialogue?

[Image: giphy.gif]

Well, I damn sure don't "own" the libs. I come here to say my piece and hear what others think. Hear, not necessarily agree.


I do think these are stupid ideas. I wonder what one should call the party that whistles and cheers when they hear them?

They are designed to make the crowd go wild and vote for her. What should one call the party that goes wild for stupid ideas? The clever party? Same party that went all in for russian collusion.

And if Warren is the nominee, I expect the libs here to vote for her - and her plan. All of them.
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2019 05:30 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
09-05-2019 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,190
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1778
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #44
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.)
09-06-2019 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,190
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1778
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #45
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, drilling and fracking are two different things. But both are temporary.
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. In effect, we negotiated our own regulations. Didn't need no stinkin' government agency to protect us. But I guess, the government is there to protect the stupid from themselves, right?
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.
I think the point of the Warren plan is that she, like Harris and Beta and others, will propose anything that gets applause at rallies and votes in primaries, without regard to the actual merits of the action. A stupid proposal, supported by the stupid party.
Kudos to you for not marching in lockstep.
I'm not sure why you have to ruin a perfectly reasonable conversation with crap like this. Do you just hang out in The Quad to "own the libs"? Or do you this as a place for constructive and stimulating dialogue?

I am 100% onboard with the stupid idea part of that. It seems to me that the greens' idea is to force people onto alternatives by making it all but impossible to produce anything else. Here in Texas, without the heavy hand of overbearing government regulation, we have significantly reduced the carbon footprint of our electricity generation industry by moving from dirtier hydrocarbons to natural gas and by becoming the number one wind energy producing state in the US (and, if we were an independent country, would rank something like #4 in the world). What drove it was simple economics, in two ways--1) natural gas became more plentiful and cheap (thanks, fracking) and 2) deregulation of electric utility rates made alternatives more feasible economically. If we quit micromanaging, economics will drive the change.

I don't buy the stupid party part. To me, republicans are the stupid party. Democrats are more the conniving and evil party. They are perfectly willing to destroy our economy, and indeed our nation, in order to buy votes to put and keep them in power. A leftist friend said something the other day that I found very revealing. I was chiding him about how democrats seem to care about winning elections and noting else, particularly not te long-term impact of their proposals, and he replied, "We have to care about nothing but elections. Conservatives can go in with life if they lose elections. But if we lose elections, then we don't have anything else."

Socialism works--until you run out of somebody else's money. Warren's and/or Sanders's ideas would run us out of a lot of somebody else in a hurry, and with them their money.
09-06-2019 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #46
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 03:09 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, drilling and fracking are two different things. But both are temporary.
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. In effect, we negotiated our own regulations. Didn't need no stinkin' government agency to protect us. But I guess, the government is there to protect the stupid from themselves, right?
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.
I think the point of the Warren plan is that she, like Harris and Beta and others, will propose anything that gets applause at rallies and votes in primaries, without regard to the actual merits of the action. A stupid proposal, supported by the stupid party.
Kudos to you for not marching in lockstep.
I'm not sure why you have to ruin a perfectly reasonable conversation with crap like this. Do you just hang out in The Quad to "own the libs"? Or do you this as a place for constructive and stimulating dialogue?

I am 100% onboard with the stupid idea part of that. It seems to me that the greens' idea is to force people onto alternatives by making it all but impossible to produce anything else. Here in Texas, without the heavy hand of overbearing government regulation, we have significantly reduced the carbon footprint of our electricity generation industry by moving from dirtier hydrocarbons to natural gas and by becoming the number one wind energy producing state in the US (and, if we were an independent country, would rank something like #4 in the world). What drove it was simple economics, in two ways--1) natural gas became more plentiful and cheap (thanks, fracking) and 2) deregulation of electric utility rates made alternatives more feasible economically. If we quit micromanaging, economics will drive the change.

I don't buy the stupid party part. To me, republicans are the stupid party. Democrats are more the conniving and evil party. They are perfectly willing to destroy our economy, and indeed our nation, in order to buy votes to put and keep them in power. A leftist friend said something the other day that I found very revealing. I was chiding him about how democrats seem to care about winning elections and noting else, particularly not te long-term impact of their proposals, and he replied, "We have to care about nothing but elections. Conservatives can go in with life if they lose elections. But if we lose elections, then we don't have anything else."

Socialism works--until you run out of somebody else's money. Warren's and/or Sanders's ideas would run us out of a lot of somebody else in a hurry, and with them their money.

Sorry, 69. I did have the stupid party confused with the evil party(your divisions on this are famous).

But since this little dust up blew up, I have been thinking on this. I think the more appropriate division is the Dems are the idealistic party, and Republicans are the pragmatic party.


Dems tend t think about what "should be", in their minds. Everybody should have a living wage, so they propose the $15 MW. We should stop the icecaps from melting. So they propose stopping offshore drilling and fracking. Life should be perfect. So they propose the GND, or as Nancy calls it, the Green Dream. .

Republicans are a bit more practical. They ask questions like "how is it to be paid for" and "what will be the consequences".

Nothing wrong with being either idealistic or pragmatic. Best though, if one is tempered with the other. If we didn't have dreamers, there would be no Kermit the Frog. If we didn't have pragmatists, there would be no anything.

I think maybe another name for the Democrats would be the Angry Party. While they have been angry a long time at various things, they have gone in overdrive anger since 11-8-16.
09-06-2019 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,190
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1778
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #47
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Sorry, 69. I did have the stupid party confused with the evil party(your divisions on this are famous).
But since this little dust up blew up, I have been thinking on this. I think the more appropriate division is the Dems are the idealistic party, and Republicans are the pragmatic party.
Dems tend t think about what "should be", in their minds. Everybody should have a living wage, so they propose the $15 MW. We should stop the icecaps from melting. So they propose stopping offshore drilling and fracking. Life should be perfect. So they propose the GND, or as Nancy calls it, the Green Dream. .
Republicans are a bit more practical. They ask questions like "how is it to be paid for" and "what will be the consequences".
Nothing wrong with being either idealistic or pragmatic. Best though, if one is tempered with the other. If we didn't have dreamers, there would be no Kermit the Frog. If we didn't have pragmatists, there would be no anything.
I think maybe another name for the Democrats would be the Angry Party. While they have been angry a long time at various things, they have gone in overdrive anger since 11-8-16.

I think the stupid/evil characterization may be regarded by many on here as more infamous than famous. Another of my sayings that I think fits with your characterization is, "In theory, theory works well in practice. In practice, it doesn't." That appears to be attributable originally, by the way, to that great baseball philosopher, Lawrence Peter (Yogi) Berra.

I think democrats are very big on idealistic, theoretical solutions that look good written on a whiteboard, but which simply don't work in practice. As you so aptly state, without dreamers we wouldn't have Kermit the Frog, and without pragmatists we wouldn't have anything.

Where I get angry with republicans is that there is a significant amount of empirical evidence out there about what works in practice, and what doesn't, to address many of our current issues--the environment, gun violence, health care, to name a few of the most obvious. And yet republicans, instead of embracing things that have worked, seem determined to avoid the problems altogether.

I see a huge opportunity for some republican to say, "Look, these are huge problems. The democrat proposed solutions are junk that will not work. Here's why they won't work. And here are things that will work, because they have worked elsewhere." But I don't see that happening. All I really see as messaging coming from republicans is keep lowering taxes without regard to the Laffer Curve, outlaw abortion, and oppose LGBT rights. That punts too much of the field on those issues to democrats, and they run wild with incredibly stupid proposals that they get to sell as, hey, at least we are doing something.

So, we are left with a party of bad ideas (democrats) against a party with no ideas (republicans). Or, evil party versus stupid party.
09-06-2019 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,811
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #48
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(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:  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.

Which is why my original comment about oil wells popping up next to houses is a zoning issue.

These regulations mean that you could drill a well between 200 and 600 ft of a lease line, depending on the depth of the well. And 600 ft is not exactly far away. I see nothing in them that provides different rules or setbacks for wells located in residential or commercial areas.
09-06-2019 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #49
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-06-2019 09:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 11:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:40 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-05-2019 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  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.

Which is why my original comment about oil wells popping up next to houses is a zoning issue.

These regulations mean that you could drill a well between 200 and 600 ft of a lease line, depending on the depth of the well. And 600 ft is not exactly far away. I see nothing in them that provides different rules or setbacks for wells located in residential or commercial areas.

600ft is two football fields.

As a practical matter, since they don't lease one lot at a time, the only way some poor schnook gets a well 601 ft away is because he was offered a chance to lease and turned it down, while his neighbors signed and exercised their NIMBY rights.

But in any case, Drilling takes about three weeks. Fracking takes 3-4 days. Then it is done. after that, intrusion is minimal and probably not noticed, any more than your neighbor two football fields away starting his car in the morning wakes you up.
09-06-2019 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,190
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1778
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-06-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which is why my original comment about oil wells popping up next to houses is a zoning issue.
These regulations mean that you could drill a well between 200 and 600 ft of a lease line, depending on the depth of the well. And 600 ft is not exactly far away. I see nothing in them that provides different rules or setbacks for wells located in residential or commercial areas.
600ft is two football fields.
As a practical matter, since they don't lease one lot at a time, the only way some poor schnook gets a well 601 ft away is because he was offered a chance to lease and turned it down, while his neighbors signed and exercised their NIMBY rights.
But in any case, Drilling takes about three weeks. Fracking takes 3-4 days. Then it is done. after that, intrusion is minimal and probably not noticed, any more than your neighbor two football fields away starting his car in the morning wakes you up.

While we are being practical, let's look at another issue. Drilling decisions are driven by economics. Are you really going to put up with the logistical nightmares incurred by drilling in proximity to a residential neighborhood when you could easily locate the well in a more accessible area on the surface and drill directionally into exactly the spot you want to hit? Of course not.

I don't know the facts around any incident where somebody drilled in someone's next door neighbor's back yard, but I have to believe it was either an awfully huge back yard or there was some extenuating circumstance not divulged. It simply makes absolutely zero sense otherwise.
09-06-2019 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #51
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 11:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-06-2019 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(09-06-2019 11:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Which is why my original comment about oil wells popping up next to houses is a zoning issue.
These regulations mean that you could drill a well between 200 and 600 ft of a lease line, depending on the depth of the well. And 600 ft is not exactly far away. I see nothing in them that provides different rules or setbacks for wells located in residential or commercial areas.
600ft is two football fields.
As a practical matter, since they don't lease one lot at a time, the only way some poor schnook gets a well 601 ft away is because he was offered a chance to lease and turned it down, while his neighbors signed and exercised their NIMBY rights.
But in any case, Drilling takes about three weeks. Fracking takes 3-4 days. Then it is done. after that, intrusion is minimal and probably not noticed, any more than your neighbor two football fields away starting his car in the morning wakes you up.

While we are being practical, let's look at another issue. Drilling decisions are driven by economics. Are you really going to put up with the logistical nightmares incurred by drilling in proximity to a residential neighborhood when you could easily locate the well in a more accessible area on the surface and drill directionally into exactly the spot you want to hit? Of course not.

I don't know the facts around any incident where somebody drilled in someone's next door neighbor's back yard, but I have to believe it was either an awfully huge back yard or there was some extenuating circumstance not divulged. It simply makes absolutely zero sense otherwise.


Let's give Lad a chance to offer some proof, like he always asks of us. Only fair.

I think that kind of stuff was more prevalent decades ago, before directional and horizontal drilling (and fracking).
09-06-2019 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,811
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #52
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
Look, this whole conversation started because I said I've seen oil and gas exploration sites located in neighborhoods. Nothing y'all have said has disputed that fact, so what are we even arguing about at this point?

Here are photos of drill rigs in neighborhoods in Colorado:

[Image: fracking_rig_in_co.jpg?itok=T7L3Bl4I]

[Image: oil_well-1532748409-6403.jpg?width=705]

My comment wasn't about this being illegal (it isn't). My comment was that it would suck to be a home owner, only to have a drill rig go up within X-hundred ft of your property, and not be able to do anything about it.
09-06-2019 12:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #53
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Look, this whole conversation started because I said I've seen oil and gas exploration sites located in neighborhoods. Nothing y'all have said has disputed that fact, so what are we even arguing about at this point?

Here are photos of drill rigs in neighborhoods in Colorado:

[Image: fracking_rig_in_co.jpg?itok=T7L3Bl4I]

[Image: oil_well-1532748409-6403.jpg?width=705]

My comment wasn't about this being illegal (it isn't). My comment was that it would suck to be a home owner, only to have a drill rig go up within X-hundred ft of your property, and not be able to do anything about it.

It would certainly suck if one was not part of the pool and/or compensated for the discomfort.

There were a couple of neighbors along my southern edge who were not part of my lease who were somewhat close to the drilling. One (the closest) was cooperative, and in the end, was rewarded by a well and stock pond at the expense of the exploration company. (The company used the well and pond for water for fracking, and when done turned it over to them). The other, somewhat farther away, complained a lot (wife mostly) about the traffic raising dust, and the oil company offered to wash their house and landscaping ... and did. Both were offered to be put up at hotels during the fracking.

In any case, the drilling lasts three weeks or so, the fracking 3-4 days, and then it is quiet as Rice stadium on a Tuesday in February.

edit: It looks like the rigs are closer than 600 ft., so likely the houses have signed leases and are part of the allotment.
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2019 12:55 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
09-06-2019 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,190
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1778
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #54
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Look, this whole conversation started because I said I've seen oil and gas exploration sites located in neighborhoods. Nothing y'all have said has disputed that fact, so what are we even arguing about at this point?
My comment wasn't about this being illegal (it isn't). My comment was that it would suck to be a home owner, only to have a drill rig go up within X-hundred ft of your property, and not be able to do anything about it.

Reading the COGCC spacing rules, the only way this could happen is if those homeowners leased their mineral rights. Or, I suppose if the developer or prior owner leased them before selling the lots. Either way, it's a case of buyer beware. If you buy a property and you don't acquire the mineral rights, you should be on notice that this could happen.

But something just doesn't look right. I can't imagine an oil company wanting to deal with the hassle that I'm sure is associated with the second photo, or even the first, when they could easily locate the top hole somewhere else and directionally drill into the same target. Those appear to be legitimate, unaltered photos, but there has to be more to the story, because as pictured, they just don't make sense.
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2019 02:58 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-06-2019 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,303
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
I wonder if you get as upset with a new house going up next door?

And, as has been noted, what you see are drilling rigs; 3-4 weeks tops of activity. Not years.

3-4 weeks of a high derrick, and large construction activity vs 40 weeks of framing, interiors, finish out, and exterior work is probably about equal.

Not only that, but based on the photos, the derricks are most likely part of a pooling --- most pooling done with residential tracts has a partial interest going back to the commons or HOA. They have probably eliminated 80 per cent of the HOA load with that 3-4 weeks.

Not a bad trade off imo. Not only that but the resale values of the houses then goes up because of that subsidy.
09-06-2019 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,811
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #56
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 02:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(09-06-2019 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Look, this whole conversation started because I said I've seen oil and gas exploration sites located in neighborhoods. Nothing y'all have said has disputed that fact, so what are we even arguing about at this point?
My comment wasn't about this being illegal (it isn't). My comment was that it would suck to be a home owner, only to have a drill rig go up within X-hundred ft of your property, and not be able to do anything about it.

Reading the COGCC spacing rules, the only way this could happen is if those homeowners leased their mineral rights. Or, I suppose if the developer or prior owner leased them before selling the lots. Either way, it's a case of buyer beware. If you buy a property and you don't acquire the mineral rights, you should be on notice that this could happen.

But something just doesn't look right. I can't imagine an oil company wanting to deal with the hassle that I'm sure is associated with the second photo, or even the first, when they could easily locate the top hole somewhere else and directionally drill into the same target. Those appear to be legitimate, unaltered photos, but there has to be more to the story, because as pictured, they just don't make sense.

That's exactly what I thought when I was in Denver a number of years ago and drove through neighborhoods and saw numerous drill rigs, just like that. A lot had walls up to help with noise issues.

My guess is that these neighborhoods are in the suburbs of Denver (the ones I saw were), where the edges of neighborhoods are basically abutting rural areas, or they aren't cookie cutter neighborhoods and the lots are large (0.5 to 1+ acres). And because of that, there are a lot of properties for an O&G company to lease in the immediate vicinity of residential structures.

There's countless articles about these wells going up near neighborhoods.

Just look at this map: https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/01/oi...orado-map/

To get an understanding of what I saw, I hope is starts you in the same place it did for me - at the Gerrity Oil and Gas well V 7-7 Wandell (look for the blue dot east of Sagebrush Park. If it doesn't, here is the street view of the three, completed, gas wells:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1555325,...312!8i6656

Now, there could be some issues where neighborhoods were built around legacy wells, but that is definitely not the case 100% of the time.
09-06-2019 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #57
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
My wells had to have 120 acres in the allotment.
09-06-2019 03:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,811
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #58
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wonder if you get as upset with a new house going up next door?

And, as has been noted, what you see are drilling rigs; 3-4 weeks tops of activity. Not years.

3-4 weeks of a high derrick, and large construction activity vs 40 weeks of framing, interiors, finish out, and exterior work is probably about equal.

Not only that, but based on the photos, the derricks are most likely part of a pooling --- most pooling done with residential tracts has a partial interest going back to the commons or HOA. They have probably eliminated 80 per cent of the HOA load with that 3-4 weeks.

Not a bad trade off imo. Not only that but the resale values of the houses then goes up because of that subsidy.

I think when you buy a home in a neighborhood, you can expect other homes to be built nearby. I don't see why one would expect an oil and gas operation to be built nearby...

Again, a zoning issue (even though you don't see it as one, for some reason).

Anyways, not worth arguing over this topic anymore. I've proven my point that, in Colorado, O&G exploration and production happens inside neighborhoods. I think that sucks for homeowners who don't want to live in a neighborhood where that happens and they have no say in it.
09-06-2019 03:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #59
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 03:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(09-06-2019 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I wonder if you get as upset with a new house going up next door?

And, as has been noted, what you see are drilling rigs; 3-4 weeks tops of activity. Not years.

3-4 weeks of a high derrick, and large construction activity vs 40 weeks of framing, interiors, finish out, and exterior work is probably about equal.

Not only that, but based on the photos, the derricks are most likely part of a pooling --- most pooling done with residential tracts has a partial interest going back to the commons or HOA. They have probably eliminated 80 per cent of the HOA load with that 3-4 weeks.

Not a bad trade off imo. Not only that but the resale values of the houses then goes up because of that subsidy.

I think when you buy a home in a neighborhood, you can expect other homes to be built nearby. I don't see why one would expect an oil and gas operation to be built nearby...

Again, a zoning issue (even though you don't see it as one, for some reason).

Anyways, not worth arguing over this topic anymore. I've proven my point that, in Colorado, O&G exploration and production happens inside neighborhoods. I think that sucks for homeowners who don't want to live in a neighborhood where that happens and they have no say in it.

When other homes are built nearby, there is lots of noise, dust, traffic and other annoyances.
09-06-2019 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,190
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1778
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #60
RE: Climate Change, Alternative Energy, and the like
(09-06-2019 03:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That's exactly what I thought when I was in Denver a number of years ago and drove through neighborhoods and saw numerous drill rigs, just like that. A lot had walls up to help with noise issues.
My guess is that these neighborhoods are in the suburbs of Denver (the ones I saw were), where the edges of neighborhoods are basically abutting rural areas, or they aren't cookie cutter neighborhoods and the lots are large (0.5 to 1+ acres). And because of that, there are a lot of properties for an O&G company to lease in the immediate vicinity of residential structures.
There's countless articles about these wells going up near neighborhoods.
Just look at this map: https://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/01/oi...orado-map/
To get an understanding of what I saw, I hope is starts you in the same place it did for me - at the Gerrity Oil and Gas well V 7-7 Wandell (look for the blue dot east of Sagebrush Park. If it doesn't, here is the street view of the three, completed, gas wells:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1555325,...312!8i6656
Now, there could be some issues where neighborhoods were built around legacy wells, but that is definitely not the case 100% of the time.

I think it has to be legacy wells in the vast majority of cases. Nobody in their right mind would choose to try to mob and demob everything you need to drill a well in a congested area like that. I think it is interesting that in the first aerial photo, the wells that are in areas with homes are all P&A'd. My guess is that those wells almost certainly long predated the subdivision. As fast as Denver is growing, there are a lot of very new subdivisions. The producing wells in that graphic all appear to be on relatively open and vacant plots. And that appears to be the case with the second photo of the three producing gas wells.

I don't know that I'd have a problem with something like the second photo near me, although I would be particularly careful if I had children because of the attractive nuisance potential.

ETA: Did a bit of digging, and the second photo is located in the town of Firestone, CO. Firestone was founded in 1908, replatted in 1974, had a population of about 1000 in 2000, and grew to 10,000 by 2010. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that the houses in that photo are somewhere on the order of 10 years old. On those facts, it would be highly likely that the wells predated the residential subdivision. I'm not sure I realized it from reading your post, but looks like the photo is of the three gas wells in the open area in the middle of the aerial map. They don't look very problematic, and the houses in the photo clearly appear to be very new.
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2019 03:35 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
09-06-2019 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.