Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGBA 2007-11-08 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GAS BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS November 8, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Duer at 6:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT ABSENT CITY STAFF Dir. of Planning & Development Lieutenant Recording Secretary Tom Duer Randy Shiflet Kathy Luppy Garry Cope Brad Greene John Pitstick Greg Lindsey Gina Harner 3. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 11, 2007 MINUTES APPROVED Randy Shiflet, seconded by Kathy Luppy, motioned to approve the minutes from October 11, 2007. The motion carried unanimously (3-0). Brad Greene was absent. Garry Cope abstained. 4. GB2007-01 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM METROPLEX BARNETT SHALE LLC FOR AN APPEAL FROM DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES FOR GRAHAM #2-H, #3-H, #4- H, #5-H GAS WELLS IN THE 7000 BLOCK OF HIGHTOWER DRIVE. Kathy Luppy asked to abstain from voting on these proceedings because she has signed a lease with the Harding Company. Page 1 of 6; 11/08/07 GBA minutes Steve Smith, Vice President of Operations, 4109 Williams Court, Grapevine, TX came forward representing the Harding Company. They have had some favorable results from Graham #1-H. The well is producing better than average. They are looking forward to moving fairly rapidly into drilling the remaining wells. Some of the problems they have run into in the urban environment are getting subordination issues from houses and how they will have the paths off of the well and determining where they will be going. The third or fourth well will be drilling into the park acreage down to the southeast corner. The city should be receiving some mineral benefits from that area. The second well that will be drilled off of this pad site will be going in an easterly direction about 6000 feet. When they first began this venture the plan was to do 4000 foot laterals but in the presentation last month we explained why they would be doing 6000 foot laterals. There are very limited drill sites through a lot of the cities in the metroplex. They will be moving in a smaller rig on Monday to go ahead and set surface casing for the next well. The current schedule is set to bring back the rig in January to start the drilling on the second well. They have talked with the gas inspectors and staff regarding the requirement that they would have to maintain 24 foot circular motion around the well at all times. They have been allowed some lenience because of the restrictions of producing while they are drilling. This is what they call a simultaneous operation. It means they will be drilling the #2-H well while continuing to produce #1-H. Their proposal is that they believe they will be able to have the masonry wall on the west side complete sometime around March 2008. They will move the rig back sometime during August through September to drill the #3-H, #4-H, #5-H. The south and east wall should be able to be completed by December 31, 2008. They are trying to work in conjunction with the builders on both sides of them. The reason that this location is different than the other locations in the metroplex is because it becomes more of a rectangular location in final production stage versus more of a square location into the drilling phase. This is the reason they are before the Gas Board to ask for some exceptions for the setback rule. Mr. Graham's house is around 414 ft. from the well head. Randy Shiflet asked for clarification on this case GB2007-01. This case is simply to address the distance between the well sites and Mr. Graham's house? Mr. Smith said yes. John Pitstick said that he received a letter from Mr. Graham asking for a variance on the distance requirements since he is the only property owner within 600 feet. He said that when they originally came before the Gas Board they got an appeal for three wells. Then they drilled the first well and the #2-H and #3-H locations have changed. As a result of the change they have to come back before the Gas Board. Chairman Duer asked how much they had changed? 25 feet? Page 2 of 6; 11 /08/07 GBA minutes Mr. Smith said that the original three wells were originally 10 feet apart. Now that #1-H is producing it is impossible for them to move in on top of that and they would have to shut the well down for 30-45 days to do that. The rig is designed to skid 25 feet. Chairman Duer asked if they would be moving east with the rest of the wells? Mr. Smith said yes. Chairman Duer the one farthest to the West is #1-H that has already been drilled? Mr. Smith said yes. They reason they are doing that is because there is going to be a drainage easement. They cannot skid the rig in the westerly direction. The first Gas Board of Appeals meeting when they were given the exception for three locations they were to have three wells drilled 10 feet apart. They are now coming back asking for the 25 feet that they will have to move toward the east for the next three wells. Mr. Cope said that we would be looking at 50 feet closer to Mr. Graham's residence? Mr. Smith asked if he meant 50 feet closer to the wells? Chairman Duer said to the house, pool house and shed? Mr. Smith said that it was 50 feet to the east at a diagonal. Chairman Duer said that it is not going in a straight line to the house. John Pitstick said that the difference would be that the closest would be 331 feet and the farthest would be 474 feet. Chairman Duer asked if the board had discussed 300 feet when they were adjusting the gas ordinance? John Pitstick said that new ordinance requires 150 feet outside the boundary of the production site. Chairman Duer asked if anything closer than 600 feet has to come before the Gas Board for approval? John Pitstick said yes. Chairman Duer asked if at one time weren't they discussing not allowing drilling closer than 300 feet? John Pitstick said that it was discussed but the ordinance actually ended up being 150 feet outside the boundary of the final production site. Page 3 of 6; 11 /08/07 GBA minutes Chairman Duer asked if that was for drilling also or just the production? John Pitstick said that they have no way of knowing where things will be inside the production site. The new ordinance is from the outside boundaries of the production site. Chairman Duer asked if Mr. Graham is the only residential homeowner that is affected? John Pitstick said yes. Chairman Duer asked if the closest one is still over 300 feet from his residence? John Pitstick said yes. Chairman Duer opened public hearing at 6:44 p.m. With no requests to speak Chairman Duer closed public hearing at 6:44 p.m. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Garry Cope motioned to approve GB2007-01. The motion was carried unanimously (3-0). Kathy Luppy abstained from voting. Brad Greene was absent. 5. GB2006-04R CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM METROPLEX BARNETT SHALE LLC FOR AN APPEAL FROM SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FROM THE GRAHAM GAS WELL SITE IN THE 7000 BLOCK OF HIGHTOWER DRIVE. Steve Smith, Vice President of Operations, 4109 Williams Court, Grapevine, TX came forward representing the Harding Company. They anticipate the drilling to begin in January and should be complete in 30-45 days and then they should be able to put up the west section of the masonry wall in March 2008. They will begin drilling the last three wells in August and hope to be finished up by December at which time they will have the south and east walls completed. Landscaping will follow shortly after that time. Garry Cope asked if the pipeline work on the west side of the property is complete yet? Mr. Smith said that the pipeline comes from the southeast corner and goes down to the Chapman valve which is at Chapman and Rufe Snow. Garry Cope asked if all of that digging is complete? Mr. Smith said yes. The pipeline is in the ground and gas has been flowing through that line since October 27. Page 4 of 6; 11/08/07 GBA minutes Chairman Duer asked if the north fence is already up? John Pitstick said that there is an existing gate. Chairman Duer said that the gate would have to be there until they completed the wells. Mr. Smith said that is correct. Chairman Duer asked if it would be too high, cost wise to go ahead and do some landscaping on that one wall to show the neighborhood some good will? Mr. Smith said that one of the things that they had discussed with staff is that when the west wall is put up for cost and economic reasons it would be a lot better to fence the entire west wall and that portion of the north wall instead of just doing about 75 feet. Chairman Duer said that he didn't realize that the north wall was that short. Mr. Smith said yes. Chairman Duer asked when they were proposing the completion of the west fence? Mr. Smith said they were hoping to complete the west wall at the end of March. They are trying to move the smaller rig in this next week and set the conductor and drill and set the surface pipe which should be around 2000 feet. Once they bring in the big rig in January they will be able to get it drilled and complete by March and get the West wall up. Chairman Duer asked if once they completed the west wall if some landscaping could be done? Mr. Smith said that he has talked to staff and they don't have a problem with doing that. It will be permanently landscaped anyway. Chairman Duer said that they would like to show the citizens what the final product will look like. John Pitstick said that our ordinance states that they must have the wall and landscape in within 90 days of completion of drilling. This is not feasible in this case. They have already asked for a year extension so staff would recommend that when they build the western wall they will complete the landscaping at the same time. By the end of the year they should be able to complete the entire wall. Staff recommends that the board set a specific time frame with the motion that if they complete before December for the wall to be completed at that time and not wait until the December 31, 2008 deadline. Chairman Duer asked if that could be timed with #5-H? Once #5-H is producing then they have 90 days or December 31, 2008? Page 5 of 6; 11/08/07 GBA minutes John Pitstick said yes. Staff doesn't have a problem with the specific recommendation they would like to tie it down to specific days of when the west wall and the rest of the wall will be completed with landscaping. If they have completed #5-H then the wall needs to be completed. Garry Cope asked if the rest of the north wall wouldn't be completed until the end of the production? John Pitstick said that is correct. Because the way the final production site is laid out they need that access from the north. The final production site will have gates. Actually there is proposed with Graham Ranch Phase 3 there will be a road going through there. They haven't seen plans for phase 3 yet but that is what they have heard. The final production site will masonry wall all around it and the gate and access will be on the east side. Chairman Duer opened public hearing at 6:53 p.m. With no requests to speak Chairman Duer closed public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Randy Shiflet, seconded by Garry Cope motioned to approve GB2006-04R with stipulation that western masonry wall be completed by April 1, 2008 or sooner and landscaping would be completed on the north and west side within 60 days of completion of western wall. The final completion of entire wall with landscaping be completed within 90 days of the completion of #5-H or by December 31, 2008. The motion was carried unanimously (3-0). Kathy Luppy abstained from voting. Brad Greene was absent. 6. ADJOURNMENT The chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Secretary { ~/ ~ f g~. O~ V"~ , Tom Duer Kathy Luppy ~. Page 6 of 6; 11 /08/07 GBA minutes