Barnett shale
I enjoyed reading your article, "Drilling expands in Texas' largest gas field" (OGJ, Jan. 19, 2004, p. 45).
Chief Oil & Gas is a local Dallas-based operator that is specifically focused on the Barnett shale. In your article, you name Burlington Resources as the No. 2 player, and Burlington even says that on its website, but Chief is actually the No. 2 gas producer in the area—producing over 90 million MMcfd with more than 200 producing wells and a $50 million plus drilling budget in 2003 and a similar budget for 2004.
Chief and most of the other smaller operators in the area don't actively pitch the media, but do like to see the story told correctly. We just wanted you to have this information for future stories.
Kristi Gittins
Gittins & Granado
Dallas
Energy bill
I read in OGJ, Feb. 16, 2004, p. 17, the editorial, "OPEC and the energy bill."
A group of us from the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers were in Washington the week (Feb. 9-13) when Senator Domenici resurrected the dead energy bill.
Domenici's S. 2095, which replaces H.R. 6 in the Senate, includes many, but not all of the oil and gas tax provisions previously included in the bill. Because of budget considerations, the energy bill's price tag had to be reduced from $31 billion to below $15 billion. Key oil and gas tax provisions in S. 2095 include the marginal well tax credit, natural gas gathering lines treated as 7-year property, deduction of delay rentals and geological and geophysical costs over 24 months, and extension and modification of credit for producing fuel from a nonconventional source (Section 29).
Perhaps even more important are two environmental issues—stormwater runoff and hydraulic fracturing—that would be resolved by language in the bill. If we fail to keep these two issues in the bill or if the bill fails to pass, any well drilled in the US probably would require a federal drilling permit!
The massive bill—more than 1,200 pages long—has many other oil and gas provisions, including natural gas market transparency, federal lands provisions, and Alaska pipeline.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not! The MTBE issue is a perfect example, as you pointed out in the editorial. But politics and legislation are not perfect. Never has been and never will be.
If MTBE was not stricken from the Senate energy bill, consuming state Senators certainly would have filibustered the bill, and we do not have 60 votes to cut off the debate. We probably have 51 votes to pass the bill if we can keep Senators from filibustering it to death.
We recognize that our friends in the House and Senate believe strongly that MTBE must be included in the final bill. Possibly it could be reinstated when a conference committee convenes again. We hope so. There are other reasons to keep the bill alive—stormwater and hydraulic fracing being two—and that means striking MTBE for now.
We recognize the political realities of the Senate at this point in time. Our strategy is to support a bill that the Senate can pass, get the bill back into a conference committee where it can be enhanced, and get it to the President for signature as soon as possible.
Alex Mills
President
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers
