[0:27] all right good evening mayor and Council
um my name is Holly strong strong
[0:31] representing ches energy and just wanted
to come to you tonight um to talk about
[0:37] a few of the items um that we've been in
discussion with over um I guess probably
[0:41] starting back in June and July when you
all were reviewing your gasing ordinance
[0:47] and uh as we were going through the
ordinance and kind of reviewing it and
[0:52] looking through some of the items we
boiled it down to May the three
[0:56] different areas that we would like to
kind of um bundle
[1:00] the the um languages that we're looking
at Under The Umbrellas and one of them
[1:05] would be environmental issues the second
one is fees and then the third one is
[1:11] grandfathering and I have a copy of the
presentation that I provided with you
[1:15] all for you all tonight and then there's
also a document um at the top it says
[1:20] Lakeside ordinance and proposed ches
peek revisions and so that's going to be
[1:25] more of a supplement document that um
I'll refer to but basically what it is
[1:29] is we went through the ordinance and
picked out the language that's currently
[1:33] in there and the Chesapeake
recommendations are in red in there and
[1:37] then if there's any items that we would
like to um delete or strike through
[1:43] that's reflected with the the strike
through in there um so I will begin this
[1:49] part um and I'll kind of walk you
through it so it'll be a little bit
[1:53] easier but it's a lot of information to
digest um but basically tonight we just
[1:57] wanted to run through it and bring a
couple of items uh to the Forefront for
[2:03] discussion so why consider the ordinance
revisions we believe that adoption of
[2:08] these proposed revisions that we'll
discuss tonight are going to be a
[2:11] win-win for the town of Lakeside City
staff ches Peak and our lessur in this
[2:18] town um one of the things that we're
looking at doing with the with the
[2:22] proposed revision would be to eliminate
any duplicative testing um this is going
[2:28] to ultimately save the taxpayer dollar
it's going to reduce the amount of work
[2:32] required by City staff and it's also
going to allow the existing Regulatory
[2:37] Agencies such as the TCEQ to operate as
they are intended and operate as um they
[2:44] do on a very daily basis and another
thing to consider is that restrictive
[2:49] drilling ordinances could affect the
development potential of future Wells um
[2:54] impacting potential royalties um we have
seen um some recently in the news um the
[3:01] city of south lake has um passed a very
restrictive Gast trilling ordinance and
[3:06] as a result um there's little uh
activity going on in there little
[3:12] gastron in there one of the the first
items under environmental issues is
[3:17] going to be air sampling and the first
page um pages one to two is what the
[3:26] current ordinance reads and what we're
proposing is that um we stick with what
[3:32] the tcq has in place already and there's
been numerous third party studies on
[3:37] Regional natural gas operations that
consistently show no cause for concern
[3:43] and you all were provided with a letter
from Brian bner who is our environmental
[3:47] health and safety adviser who is also
with me this evening um and that letter
[3:52] outlined a few of those studies that we
um kind of picked for you all to look
[3:57] through uh the studies are very lengthy
I've provided a copy to Diana for you
[4:01] all to um review at your leisure um but
in there um you know you can just kind
[4:08] of read through that at your and there's
a copy also should be included with the
[4:13] presentation
tonight so the current ordinance
[4:17] language is inconsistent with the
current tcq regulation and the tcq has
[4:22] pracy within Texas to permit inspect and
enforce those air violations on the mun
[4:29] ipal level The Authority exists around
the nuances or the the nuisance with the
[4:35] dust and the odor and the tcq must take
any survey samples ultimately to be able
[4:42] to enforce any air quality um
consequences that may be occurring um so
[4:48] this would the current ordinance
requires unnecessary air sampling um
[4:53] creating un enforceable
duplication Chesapeake's commitment here
[4:59] into cross the board net is 100%
compliance if it's if it's broken we'll
[5:05] fix it um period and the recommendation
that Chesapeake makes here is just to
[5:10] revise the language to require the
operator to maintain compliance with all
[5:14] state and federal regulatory standards
and on page seven of the supplement that
[5:20] you have um there's a a best practices
and red that we've outlined and that's
[5:26] the elite detection and compliance plan
and that's kind of suggested language
[5:30] that you all can go back and read
through um that we we feel would be a
[5:35] win-win for both Lakeside and chest
speak the next issue under
[5:41] environmental under the environmental
umbrella is going to be the water
[5:45] sampling and on pages 2 through three in
your
[5:49] supplements it
outlines what the current ordinance
[5:54] says and one thing that we
have experienced here in the bar is that
[6:00] there is no evidence of exist water and
well water well contamination resulting
[6:05] from Barnet shell natural gas production
and again I've got Brian burner here
[6:11] that you can answer questions if you
have more specific um thoughts or
[6:15] concerns if you've read about something
um to proba to try and work through
[6:19] those or talk through some of those
issues and the current ordinance also
[6:24] shows a distance of 2,000 ft um from the
well board that the water well would
[6:29] need to be sampled and we ches believes
that it's impossible to isolate the
[6:34] actual source of contamination of a
water well at a distance of 2,000 ft so
[6:40] Chesapeake recommends that the town of
Lakeside conduct post Drilling and post
[6:45] rcking sampling of the municipal water
wells within 300 ft of the wellbore
[6:50] within 30 days of the conclusion of that
fracking or drilling activity and then
[6:56] the cost for such testing would be
covered in the permitting
[7:02] fees and so there's again there's
language on pages two and three in red
[7:07] you can go back and look at um that that
we would recommend for you to consider
[7:13] there as
[7:16] well the third issue under the
environmental umbrella relates to the
[7:21] lift and the line
compressors um the current ordinance has
[7:26] setbacks in place 6 to 700t set backs in
place and um it mandates a lot of
[7:33] permanent structures to be um
surrounding these gas lift compressors
[7:39] and by mandating those enclosures like
is represented in the
[7:44] presentation um it can impact the
performance of the compressor which goes
[7:48] back to impacting the performance of The
Well ultimately and potentially
[7:53] impacting um the potential development
of those gas Wells and it can also
[7:57] prolong the activity on the side
um additional heat on this system can
[8:02] affect the well productivity as well and
Alternatives if the noise is the issue
[8:08] there are sound blankets that can very
effectively reduce and stay keep those
[8:14] compressors within allowable limits
allowable decel levels of that's in your
[8:18] current ordinance um lift compressors
are also they're often rented and not
[8:24] owned by The Operators making the
permanent enclosure impractical to
[8:28] enclosure a rented um compressor and
within that and then the 600t setbacks
[8:34] are not necessary to mitigate sound
again we can do that with the sound
[8:38] blankets or the the the shorter sound
walls around the compressor Jack the's
[8:44] recommendation would be a require
permanent structure only if the lift or
[8:48] line compressors are unable to meet
those allowable noise limits and the
[8:53] chest PE would also recommend removal of
the stepb distance
[9:01] and that is
reflected on page four of the
[9:10] supplement
the and the the next issue under the
[9:15] environmental umbrella would be the
sound and the preactivity sound survey
[9:20] that we do it's 72-hour sound survey
measures the regular frequency that's
[9:26] conducted by a third party and it
demonstrates the Ambient sound levels
[9:30] and what we have found in our sound
survey is that the ambient levels are
[9:36] slightly higher than what the current
ordinance allow so even at ambient it's
[9:41] out of compliance and this is due to
road noise the location of the you know
[9:46] being in the nearby flight path and even
crickets chirping made those those
[9:50] deciel levels Spike
slightly just's recommendation would be
[9:57] to delete the current ordinance language
relating to low frequency noise and
[10:02] we're working with Baron um our
environmental or not our environmental
[10:06] company a environmental company in the
Barnet shell that does a lot has a ton
[10:11] of experience with sound surveying um in
other cities to develop a reasonable
[10:17] deciel level that would work for those
low frequency um ambient levels now the
[10:23] difference between low frequency
frequency pure tones it's very umed and
[10:29] can be very confusing and I've talked
with a few of you all about having
[10:33] potentially at the next council meeting
having Barons come by and providing a a
[10:38] presentation and kind of explaining what
that means what what can the human year
[10:42] actually hear and how can you um you
know have an ordinance that that allows
[10:49] for you know a reasonable amount of of
noise on the
[10:54] site um and what you do have in your
ordinance is the the decibel level
[10:59] during fracking and drilling um which
would be five five DB sound level not to
[11:05] exceed five DB during the daytime and
three DB at night time and then in your
[11:10] the current ordinance for fracking it
says um noise level not to exceed 7even
[11:15] DB and we would recommend 10 DB um just
of bumping that up to up three decal
[11:27] levels and the final
issue under the environmental umbrella
[11:32] is going to be as it relates to the
Railroad Commission permit and basically
[11:37] the current ordinance requires an
approved Railroad Commission permit at
[11:42] the time that Chesapeake submits the gas
well or that any company would submit
[11:46] the gas well permit and for various
reasons that I've outlined here we would
[11:53] like to recommend
that prior to the issuance of the gas
[11:57] well is when you would need to have the
approved Rel commission permit so and
[12:02] for one of the main reasons and one of
the big things here is that leasing
[12:07] continues to go on um after we've
submitted the well or the well
[12:12] application and so having to go back
having our land team having to go back
[12:16] to the state and amend those permits
constantly uses up resources uh CH speak
[12:22] resources State resources constantly
amending those permits as we take and
[12:27] expand our wells and our least hold in
that area um another reason because the
[12:32] city permitting process can be lengthy
especially if there's a you know a
[12:36] council meeting involved or there's much
work to be done with the surrounding
[12:41] Community um we can go ahead and have
that process started and not necessarily
[12:46] need an approved Road Commission permit
in hand and ultimately any activity on
[12:51] that site requires the roadroad
commission perit as far as drilling goes
[12:56] but our request is that the ordinance
language say um what it points out here
[13:02] in this box which is on page nine of
your supplement document in red and that
[13:07] says prior to the issuance of a gasv
permit operator shall provide to the
[13:11] town a copy of the approved rail
recission permit to drill but not before
[13:16] applying for a city of
[13:20] permit I'll move on to the second
umbrella that we've kind of defined