Oil company, ranchers disagree on terms of development

The ranchers stood out in the room full of lawyers in suits at Tuesday’s Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission hearings. The Moore family — Frank, David, Keith and Josh — sat through hours of testimony, starting with an acrimonious battle between two gas companies over drilling in western Wyoming. The four Moores wandered the hallways during breaks, returning to hear discussion of a single well north of Lander that owed taxes. Their time to speak finally arrived late in the afternoon. At issue is whether landowners have a window of time when they protest industry activity on their property before operations begin; specifically at issue is protest of bonding — security held by the state to cover potential damages. It’s an unusual disagreement for the commission and one that may not lean in the landowners’ favor. It comes down to interpreting statute. The company says it’s lived up to its responsibilities according to the law and is concerned that a change in interpretation would set a bad precedent for industry. The Moores say the law gives them 30 days for protest. The commission, represented by Eric Easton of the Wyoming Attorney General’s office, read it differently: once prerequisites are met for bonding, the company can proceed while landowner objections are handled...The work wasn’t so much the problem with the Moores, who began discussing access and timing with Seitel in May, they said. Those discussions continued via email, phone and in-person meetings for months. But the Moores wanted the work done at times of the year when it would not impact ranching. Seitel couldn’t reach agreement with the Moores. In August, the company posted a $24,000 bond, an amount double the minimum bond demanded by statute. The Moores filed a protest Aug. 30. They believe they had 30 days to protest. What they didn’t understand — and what was not communicated to them when they reached out to OGCC staff — was that the protest wouldn’t hold up Seitel’s work, said Frank Moore. For the Moores, the heart of the issue isn’t the bond amount. Bonding was the only means by which they could protest. “Our concern was the time of the year they were coming in,” Frank Moore said. “It was the very first thing we discussed, and we discussed it every time we talked.” The company’s operations took place in August and September, when fire danger was high and both wildlife and grazing could be impacted, he argued...MORE