June 22, 2009
Logan judge allows new gas drilling in state park
Advertiser

LOGAN, W.Va. -- A Texas-based oil and gas company should be allowed permits for five gas wells in Chief Logan State Park, a circuit court judge said in a ruling that halted a state effort to block the drilling.

The state Department of Environmental Protection has four months to appeal the ruling by Logan Circuit Court Judge Roger Perry. Ray Franks, the agency's general counsel, said Monday a final decision on whether to file a petition for appeal hasn't been made yet.

Perry ruled that the DEP lacked the authority to deny permits for the gas wells to Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. because the 1965 statute cited by the agency in its denial refers to the state Division of Natural Resources, not the DEP.

"We are pleased with and appreciate the ruling by Judge Perry and believe that it is the correct ruling," said attorney Tim Miller with Robinson & McElwee, a Charleston-based law firm that represents the company.

The DEP believes it's required to enforce the law in a manner consistent with other state agencies, Franks said, explaining the agency's citation of the statute.

Perry also noted that officials have allowed drilling in other state parks, including permits issued after the 1965 ban on the practice. Cabot currently operates three wells in Chief Logan State Park and has another three in an adjoining wildlife management area.

That doesn't invalidate the state law, Franks said.

"If 19 cars pass a state trooper on the Interstate doing 95 miles an hour, and he doesn't pull them over but he pulls me over doing 75 miles an hour, I can't use that as a defense," Franks said.

In its argument before the court, Cabot cited the deed that conveyed much of the land used to create the park. The deed kept the gas rights with the owners, who have leased them to Cabot.

Perry agreed, and ruled that denial of the permits would be essentially a case of the state taking the property rights of the owners, referred to in the ruling as the Lawson heirs.

Miller said Cabot intends to meet with the state agencies and wants to move forward with the drilling.

Report a violation or offensive comment.
[X] Close
to report abuse.
Posted By: Engr (1:23pm 06-23-2009)
Report Abuse


I do not believe a few gas wells scattered thoughout the Park will "destroy" the Park. Probably not even be noticed if drilled in the right locations.

Posted By: jkotcon (6:46am 06-23-2009)
Report Abuse


I have not seen the permits in this case, but it should be technically possible to access the gas from outside the state park through some type of directional drilling. That way the park surface is preserved, as was the intent of the original donation, while the mineral property is accessed. The Judge erred by failing to consider such less impacting alternatives. It may cost Cabot a little more, but a "no surface occupancy" option preserves the original intent of the owners while protecting the rights of the public.

Posted By: mtnmedic (5:14pm 06-22-2009)
Report Abuse


"...a couple of low paying jobs are not worth destroying West Virginia's environment for." The land for the park was generously donated by a family that specifically stipulated that they would retain the mineral rights. The gas beneath the land still belongs to the family that donated it. Pretty presumptious of you to dictate what they should do with their property rights. If the state denied access to the gas, the family who donated the land would be within their legal rights to take the land back and then there would be no park at all. You are right to refer to the land as "our" park only as long as you recognize the donors mineral rights; otherwise they just might reclaim it and it becomes "their" coal and natural gas field.

Posted By: tomfool (4:47pm 06-22-2009)
Report Abuse


I'm not sure Logan County Circuit Court even has jurisdiction in this case. I think you have to sue the state at the seat of state government - Kanawaha County. WVDEP lawyers may have committed malpractice if they didn't move for a change of venue. In any event the WV Supreme Court will need to review this decision. It's dubious.

Advertisement - Your ad here
Advertisement - Your ad here
Advertisement - Your ad here