Trinity East Energy Letter to CPC

7/29/2019 Trinity East Energy Letter to CPC

1/3

~TRINITY EAST ENERGYFebruary 7, 2013

Dallas Plan Commission1500Marilla StreetDallas, Texas 75201RE: Trinity East Energy's Response to Letter dated January 30, 2013 fromTerry WelchTo themembers of theDallas CityPlan Commission:

We arein receipt of aletter dated January 30,2013 fromTerry Welch addressedto theCPC regarding theSUP Applications of Trinity East Energy. Wewould like torespond to the assertions and questions raised by Mr. Welch.

Onpage 1of the letter, Mr. Welch erroneously states in Section 1that:"Dallas has adopted regulations that would permit onecompressor for natural gaswells on apad site since asingle, on-site compressor for thepad sitewould be"equipment" and "structures" for natural gasproduction."However, nowhere in this section, or any other section, does the Codemention"one" compressor, or "a single, on sitecompressor" asMr. Welch's letter would lead youtobelieve. Mr. Welch hasmerely read into theCode someadditional words that will getto his desired result, but those additional words, andhis conclusion, arenot the law. The

truth is that many production sites contain more than oneseparator or compressor,depending on thevolume of gasproduced and dther production related issues. If youtakeMr. Welch's added language literally, only onepiece of any type of equipmentwould be allowed on any drillsite, nomatter what thevolume of gasproduced or thecapacity of that onepieceof equipment. That would beanabsurd result.The reality is that theDrilling Ordinance provides broad flexibility in equipping aproduction site to accomplish the stated requirement of conducting operations "inaccordance with thepractices of areasonable andprudent gas drilling operation in theState of Texas" (Section 5IA-12.107(a)(1)).

With that standard inmind, and recognizing thebenefits of removing much of theequipment normally found on agas production site, Trinity East has designed asystemand aplan which allows for the relocation of separation equipment, wastewater storagetanks, compressors, and other equipment fromthe twopark land sites and theplacementof that equipment onprivate land in an industrial zoning district. Furthermore, and veryimportantly, it allows for the redirection of truck traffic off of park land for waterremoval and asmall footprint onpark land. This plan was developed in concert with, andwith the support of, theParks Department. Frankly, webelieve theCPC would behard


2/3

pressed to find anyonewho would object to theresulting benefits to thepark land fromthis design.Onpage 2of his letter, Mr. Welch surprisingly takes theposition that if wemerely present the argument that it is OK toput thenormal production equipment for

three sites onto one site(even if it greatly enhances andbenefits public land) that it willtakeus down the slippery slope to "50 compressors ononesite" and the "permanenthousing of30 or 50tank trucks" thus authorizing a"truck barn". Mr.Welch fails to notethat the existing 1Mzoning already allows aCommercial Motor Vehicle Parking use onthe site.These wild predictions areentertaining, but we arebefore theCPC to address areal life proposal, with real life facts, which arebefore theCPC for consideration onthemerits of this system design ONLY. The siteplan included as apart of the ordinance willlimit theuse to only what is shown. His speculations completely ignore the reality thatthe design before the CPC incorporates only theequipment which is required for thegasproduced fromthesethree sites. To reinforce that fact, theSUP includes a

condition to that effect.The equipment necessary for gasproduction canbeplaced onthree separate sites,or on one site. Webelieve thedesignwehavedeveloped incorporates common sense,and theparks department and city staff agreewith us.It is interesting tonote that in support of his slippery slope argument Mr. Welchpoints out in his note at thebottom of Page 2 that Section 51A-12.107(g)(5), which dealswith on-site equipment, "provides no limitation on thenumber of on-site tanks that maybeused at apad site." Heshould note that it also provides no limitation on thenumber ofcompressors, asalient factwhich completely rebuts his earlier statement that the

regulations only "permit onecompressor."PAGE 3The last paragraph onpage three ofMr.Welch's letter alludes to theMatrixprepared by the Task Forceand somehow concludes that theCity's interpretation ofexisting regulations has changed because theCity's interpretation ofthose regulationsappears to contradict aone sentence comment made by theTask Force. Iamnot surewhat the comment means or exactly what it is addressing, butIhink it is obvious that theCity is not bound by ashort, unsubstantiated, and vague comment made in theTaskForcematrix. Our applications aremade under the ordinance that exists today andwhenwe consummated our deal with the City of Dallas.PAGE 4Onpage 4Mr. Welch addresses air quality issues, and recites some emissionstatistics for this site, which frankly arenot correct. Wecertainly agree that emissionsmitigation is serious andnon-negotiable, andwewill comply with all applicable laws andregulations regarding emissions. Wewould urge theCPC to consider the extensive laws,rules, regulations andpermitting processes which arealready inplace, and allow the


3/3

TCEQ to address this issue, which is their area of expertise. The Chief Toxicologist oftheTCEQ, Dr. Michael Honeycutt, noted this Monday: "This agency has put alot ofresources into monitoring and inspecting theoil and facilities in theBarnett Shale.Things are looking really good as far asair quality."PAGESMr. Welch appears to urge theCPC to somehow adopt all of theTask Forcerecommendations and incorporate them into this process. It is our opinion, and that ofother industry members, that those recommendations, if adopted, will amount to adefacto ban on drilling in theCity. That approach has been used to stop drilling in severalcities in theDFW area, and amajority of the task force recommendations aretaken fromthose cities. Mr. Welch's firm, in fact, hashad ahand in drafting ordinances for hismunicipal clients that amount to adefacto permanent moratorium ondrilling.Mr. Welch alsocomplains about thelack of very specific and detailed standardsin several conditions in theSUP related to emissions. Again, this is anarea of expertisewhich is extensively controlled andmonitored by existing laws, rules, regulations andpermitting processes.Those issues aside, we encourage theCPC to follow its charge to consider theSUPs before it based upon theordinance which is in effect. Wewould also encouragetheCPC to consider the recommendations of thecity staff, and the thoughtfulconsiderations and expertise of theparks department staff in its role in developing this

plan.PAGE 6Threat of Litigation - Trinity East Energy has never communicated any threats oflitigation to theCity. In fact, wehave patiently cooperated with delays for theTaskForce and areconcentrating onthe land use issues that arebefore theCommission.PAGE 7Mr. Welch somehow concludes that the "review process is being rushed".Apparently Mr. Welch is unaware that this process began five years agowhen, at theCity's invitation, Trinity East paid theCity avery significant sum to lease city ownedland. (Side note - Gas leases without the right to drill and extract thegas areworthless.)Working with theparks department, city staff, theU. S.Army Corps of Engineers, theflood plain administrator, and agroup of very qualified engineers, architects, and

planners webegan theprocess four years ago of designing, surveying, and testing thesystem design, and pursuing SUPsand drilling permits. The SUP's currently before theCPC were filed two years ago. Mr. Welch is, respectfully, mistaken.Sincerely,Trinity East Energy, LLC

Trinity East Energy Letter to CPC

Documents