Newsletter of the Michigan Communities Land Use Coalition

Spring 1995

Volume 2, Number 2

An Editorial ~

MCLUC Launches New Campaign

Four Point Program Seeks Genuine Progress

For more than a year, MCLUC has been working to organize an effective political response to Antrim gas development, which is quickly changing the landscape and the communities of Northwest Michigan.

MCLUC supports careful development of the Antrim Shale formation, and many of our members are leaseholders. What MCLUC and a growing number of public officials object to, though, is the damage that is occurring to Northwest Michigan’s landscape, and the thoughtless and bullying manner of gas industry executives. The executives have essentially told county commissioners, township supervisors, and property owners that the industry will not address public concerns because they don’t have to. Their response is, if you don’t like what we’re doing, sue us.

Instead of the belligerence of the oil and gas industry, officials of the DNR Geological Survey Division turn a deaf ear to community concerns. The outcome is the same—there is no local involvement in developing the region’s Antrim gas fields, which are likely to be the single largest industrial infrastructure ever installed in Northwest Michigan.

Last year, MCLUC’s strategy was to alert residents and public officials about the impending Antrim gas boom, and to build a bridge between the industry and the community. Our aim was to work with energy industry executives to reduce the unwanted aspects of Antrim gas development. We discovered the region’s deep resolve to protect its land. But we also found an insolent industry, coddled by the state, and unwilling to cooperate.

Faced with the clear limits of our initial strategy, MCLUC has developed a new, more encompassing campaign. It is designed to end the cozy relationship between the DNR and gas developers, and to achieve permanent changes in state policy.

The cornerstones of the campaign are: 1) To dismantle the DNR’s Geological Survey Division in order to end its conflict of interest; 2) To levy a tax on natural gas produced from the Antrim Shale formation that would be used by communities for land use protection; 3) To increase the property rights of landowners when it comes to oil and gas leasing policies; and 4) To require the energy industry to submit hydrocarbon development plans for drilling in protected watersheds. (See the next page for details).

Michigan’s natural gas rush is only beginning. The Antrim Shale formation is said to contain trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Development of the Antrim Shale formation since the late 1980s reversed the decline in the state’s oil and gas industry. A cleaner-burning fuel than coal or oil, more than half of all natural gas produced in Michigan now comes from Antrim Shale.

But developing what is fast becoming the most promising energy reserve ever tapped in Michigan should not occur at the expense of the state’s magnificent northern landscape, nor at the expense of the much larger and existing economic infrastructure—agriculture, recreation, tourism, and forestry—that exists here.

The political discord that citizens are expressing in Michigan only will grow louder and more insistent unless the state Department of Natural Resources and Governor Engler exert greater authority on an industry that has nothing but profound disdain for any person or group that raises objections.

The preface of Public Act 61, the state’s oil and gas law, makes note of the "unwarranted slaughter" of Michigan’s virgin forests at the turn of the century. The spirit of the law is clear—natural resources must be managed so that such a waste does not happen again. Yet the energy industry, the DNR, and the Governor are leaving a legacy of land fragmentation, eroded stream banks, trampled wetlands, rumbling compressor stations, and distraught citizens. Natural gas development, in short, is becoming another resource-driven boom producing indelible scars on Michigan’s landscape that we will come to regret.

The GSD’s unwavering support of the oil and gas industry also has caused internal strife within the Department of Natural Resources. The DNR’s wildlife, fisheries, and forestry divisions have been at odds for years with the GSD over energy development policies and practices.

The GSD has proven itself incapable of preventing waste to the environment as it encourages energy development. The promoter of an industry can not also be allowed to serve as its primary regulator.

2. A new environment and energy tax, to be collected by townships on all Antrim Shale natural gas produced within their boundaries, must be established. At current rates of production, the fee—4 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas—would raise over $4 million. The tax proceeds would be devoted to strengthening county planning departments and local zoning boards, forming land use protection committees, and safeguarding open land and communities.

The natural gas boom in Michigan began with a generous Federal energy tax credit that now costs taxpayers more than $1 billion a year, $100 million in Michigan alone. The credit, enacted by Congress in 1980, primarily has benefited the energy industry’s investors. It is long past time for communities to gain revenues from this valuable nonrenewable resource that is extracted from their lands.

3. The property rights of surface owners who do not own their mineral rights must be strengthened. They are being harmed by tree cutting, bulldozing, road building, drilling , and pipeline construction on their land against their will, and with compensation at a rate far below the value of their loss.

Property owners have built an influential political movement in recent years by complaining about environmental rules that are too expensive and too intrusive. But almost nothing is said about the power of the energy industry to take control of property from people who do not own their mineral rights.

The energy industry also has the power to force property owners who own their mineral rights but choose not to lease them to become part of an oil and gas development. Such authority is called "force pooling," and it is occurring with greater frequency across the state. Few other industries have such power to decide the use of land, and none wield it with more ruthlessness than the oil and gas industry. Landowners need new legislation that broadens and clarifies their rights.

4. The industry must be required to prepare hydrocarbon development plans, similar to the one established for the Pigeon River country in the 1970s, for watersheds across the state. In Manistee and Benzie counties, the DNR has spent enormous amounts of time and money studying, talking about, and taking steps to guard the Betsie River, the Manistee River, and Bear Creek. It makes no sense for the Geological Survey Division to undo all that work by permitting hundreds of gas wells on sensitive lands.

(Midnight, March 17, 1995)

By Kitty Myers

You’re felled by a springtime cold or flu

and all you want to do is curl up in a cotton ball cocoon

to insulate your throbbing head and aching body

only you’re really in your own bed, and all it is

is the inescapable night time noise

of the compressor station

I moved here for the grandness of this landscape, painted by nature much better than I could ever achieve. Still, as I walked over patches of crumbling ice and hardening mud, I could take refuge in the sounds, not many, for the animals prowl quietly at night and stand still when my dog is near. I could derive joy from the smells, damp, earthy, primed for rain. The greatness of the scene, the quietude, the naturalness of the odors surrounding me evoked both joy and pain, for I also wondered how long this joy will last. Forever, I hope.

The quickening of gas development in our area has shattered the security of my visions of a haven amidst the grandeur of nature. I was prepared to assume the role of a protector by respecting the land around me; I did not, however, envision myself as a defender, an activist in the struggle between loving the scenes and the natural progression of land development.

I understand the economic aspects of the discovery of prime gas underneath the earth, for I know this is not a wealthy area. Still, I retain the notion that most people here want to continue to enjoy the beauties of nature surrounding us, and would wish to see a sane and sensible development of those resources we cannot see, that is, the gas below the surface. This means careful attention to the spacing of gas exploration stations, a muffling, indeed, eradication of noise coming from such apparatus, and an aesthetic arrangement of any equipment on the land.

I worry about the role of the DNR in this whole matter, for I still do not get the feeling that this department, protector of our natural resources, is attentive enough in its scrutiny of the requests of these developers. Lastly, I worry as anyone who has had cancer would, about the long-term effects of whatever fumes that might be released in the air could have on not only my health but that of everyone else nearby.

I conclude my writing of this, again after coming in from a walk with my dog. I have seen the stars, the moon, the Big Dipper, and I must admit I know little about the science of the sky. I do not understand the sky, but I love to watch it, believing it will be unchanged for perhaps eons by what is done and placed on this earth. But, getting back to my current worry, I wonder, with apprehension, some truculence perhaps, as we reap the riches of the earth, the soil beneath our feet, if next Spring I will be able to smell the rain?

Author Margaret Perry is a MCLUC member from Thompsonville

Antrim gas wells are overtaking thousands of acres of state land in Alpena County, and residents are organizing to slow the development and call for stricter oversight by the state.

In February, more than 100 Alpena residents met at the Ossineke Township Hall in Hubbard Lake to hear from state officials and energy industry executives. MCLUC has provided information to many Alpena township officials and land owners, among them Kenneth A. Lobert, the Ossineke Township Supervisor, and Larry Matuzak, an Alpena County resident.

Mr. Lobert and Mr. Matuzak led a contingent of county residents to Montmorency County in April to see the intensive development there. Representatives of the Huron Environmental Action League, which has been battling a hazardous waste incinerator in Alpena and is one of the state’s most active grass roots environmental groups, also are getting involved in Antrim gas development.

MCLUC has joined environmental groups from across the state to form the Oil and Gas Coalition. The group is hoping to build a much more visible and influential campaign to protect the land, the water, and property owners in the path of Antrim gas development.

The coalition’s first joint action was to appear before DNR Director Roland Harmes and members of the Natural Resources Commission on April 12 at the Hartwick Pines State Park near Grayling to recommend changes in state policy.

Ann Baughman from the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council and Mike Brock of Trout Unlimited called on the commission to stop issuing drilling permits after January 1, 1996, unless a package of oil and gas development rules, under consideration for more than eight years, is finally approved.

Gerard Grabowski, a Pleasanton Township board member, told the commission that the DNR was wrong to oppose his township’s zoning amendment, which gives local residents more authority to manage Antrim gas development. And MCLUC called for tighter restrictions because of the damage that Antrim development is causing in Northern Michigan.

Along with Ms. Baughman, Mr. Brock, Mr. Grabowski, and MCLUC, the other members of the Oil and Gas Coalition are:

To the Editor:

I am impressed with your professional rationale as it applies to the environment and the well-being of our general area. After considerable discussion at the regular meeting of the Betsie River Sportsman’s Club, April 17, a motion was made to support the concept of oil and gas well installations on no less than 80 acres, with the ideal spacing 160 acres apart. The motion carried unanimously with 16 members present.

Our club is small—about 75 members—but big on accomplishments. We are proud of our 27 years of environmental achievements.

To the Editor:

I read with great interest your last newsletter. I just wanted to warn you, if you didn’t already know it, that you’re dealing with the foxes who are already in the hen house. Oil representatives and the Michigan United Conservation Clubs have powerful ties to the National Rifle Association, which has great control over the DNR. It is not the DNR field representative’s fault. It is politics in Lansing taking place behind the scenes that controls them. The representative from Michigan United Conservation Clubs to the Benzie-Manistee Oil and Gas Task Force is not going to be on the landowner’s side. I own land in Springdale Township and I hope you can do some good.

To the Editor:

Miles of pipelines, droning processing stations, one well every 40 acres, and an extensive network of access roads slash across the once bucolic Jordan River Valley. Antrim gas developers are tearing through Jordan and six other townships in their westward march towards Grand Traverse Bay.

Last month, they staked and cleared behind our home for a well. We have been able to have the proposed compression facility moved from our front yard.

According to the DNR geologist in Gaylord, 100 new drilling permits have been issued for Antrim County alone this year, and more pour in every day. The development already encompasses 33,000 acres east of Bellaire, and 20,000 more acres of state and privately-owned wilderness in the Jordan Valley Management Area.

Unsuspecting landholders in the Jordan River Valley realized too late that not only did they not own or control their mineral rights, but that neighboring farms and private land in surrounding townships had been leased without protection for the lessor, or regard for the environment.

An aggressive and well-informed citizen’s group remains the only effective way to help people and protect the environment in Michigan.

To the Editor:

The Winter 1995 MCLUC Reporter ran an article entitled "O.I.L. Avoids Sanctions."

Here are the facts of the case: O.I.L. applied for permits to drill gas wells on two parcels of private land adjoining the Jordan Valley Management Area. Geological Survey Division staff made a thorough review of the applications and informed Forest Management Division personnel. There was no justification for denying the permits, so the DNR issued them.

State lands in the management area are leased as non-development. However, the DNR, through our Real Estate Division, did agree to join in a unitization agreement. The state would participate in royalties that would incorporate state-owned minerals under the non-development acreage.

The position of the Forest Management Division was the non-development status precluded not only wells but pipelines from the lands in question. Therefore, when O.I.L. laid a pipeline across state-owned land, the Department took action. However, we were subsequently advised by the Attorney General that the state could not legally prevent O.I.L. from placing and using the pipeline due to the fact that we had entered into the unitization agreement.

We take a very proactive approach in protecting the environment and the legal rights of all parties involved, and I believe we are doing a very effective job.

MCLUC replies:

The more we learn about the O.I.L. pipeline case in the Jordan River Valley, the more troubling it becomes. Our description of the case was accurate. (See the Autumn 1994 and Winter 1995 issues of the MCLUC Reporter). And as Mr. Fitch’s letter illustrates, it turns out that O.I.L. was caught in an interagency struggle. The DNR forestry and wildlife divisions sought sound stewardship of the Jordan River Valley, an exceptionally beautiful state-owned wilderness. Meanwhile, the DNR Geological Survey Division approved new gas wells in the area so the state could collect royalty income from those same lands. A more telling example of a state agency failing to protect a natural treasure would be hard to find.

STATE PROPOSES LEASING 22,800

ACRES IN BENZIE COUNTY

In one of the largest lease sales ever in Northwest Michigan, the DNR is offering more than 46,000 acres of state-owned mineral rights for oil and gas development, almost half of it in Benzie County.

Spanning hundreds of acres of private land in Joyfield Township, large tracts near the Betsie River in Weldon Township, miles of state forest in Colfax Township, even woodlands owned by Crystal Mountain Resort, the lease sale on July 26 could open Benzie County to the same intensive search for Antrim gas that has scarred the forests and tried the patience of people in other Northern Michigan counties.

Northwestern Natural Gas laid out the first Antrim gas unit development in Benzie County this winter, a 22-well project along Karlin Road in Colfax Township that stretches into Manistee County’s Cleon Township.

Of the 22,804 acres of state-owned mineral rights available for leasing in Benzie County, fully one-third, or 7,300 acres, is initially open to oil and gas drilling. The remainder is classified as "non-development," meaning the state has no immediate intention of allowing drilling on the land, but leaves open the possibility that it could change the designation. In Manistee and other counties, gas developers have leased state minerals classified as "non-development" and then quietly sought approval from the state to bring in their drilling rigs.

Among the parcels being offered in Benzie County for as little as $10 an acre are lands around the Betsie River Pathway, a popular 8-mile skiing and hiking trail managed by the DNR in Weldon Township. State forest along the proposed Betsie Valley Trail in Colfax Township also is up for leasing. Nearly 900 acres of state-owned mineral rights severed from private land in the southern and eastern portions of Joyfield Township are being offered. And more than 1,200 acres in Homestead Township are available for leasing, although they have been classified as non-development.

In Manistee County, the state is offering 3,304 acres for mineral leasing, with over 1,800 acres classified as open to development. Most of the land is in Pleasanton Township, encompassing large tracts of the Pere Marquette State Forest and sizable amounts of state-owned mineral rights beneath private lands as well. Hundreds of acres also are being offered in Springdale and Maple Grove townships.

Thousands of acres of forest, farm land, and open meadows in Montmorency, Antrim, and Grand Traverse counties are included in this sale.

MCLUC is submitting a request to the DNR to reclassify as non-development some of the land now open to drilling. Written comments on the proposed sale must be received at the DNR by June 5. A complete description of the land to be leased is available from the Forest Management Division, DNR, P.O. Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909, or by calling 517-373-7663. Written requests to change classifications can be made to Gerald Thiede, State Forester, Forest Management Division, P.O. Box 30452, Lansing, MI 48909.

Bear Lake Zoning Change Promotes Haphazard Development

The Bear Lake Township Board of Supervisors voted in March to replace the township’s thoughtful zoning ordinance with one that would allow uncontrolled strip development along U.S. 31, enable homes to be built much closer to Bear Lake, and vastly accelerate the conversion of valuable farmland to industrial or residential uses.

The Board’s action, which came on a vote of 4-1, reflected the militant anti-regulatory mood that has gripped Congress, the State Capitol, and many regions of rural America. MCLUC sees the ordinance as poorly conceived and contrary to the best interests of the community. By encouraging haphazard development and sprawl, the new Bear Lake zoning plan is bad for the economy and the land. In effect, the ordinance is an anti-ordinance, and will reverse years of effort by both the township and Manistee County to encourage new economic opportunities in concert with environmental protection.

MCLUC encouraged its members in Bear Lake to turn out at the township hall on March 28, the night of the vote, and to call on the Board to reject the regressive proposal. Kitty Myers, vice-chairman of MCLUC and a Bear Lake Township resident, spoke at the standing room only meeting in opposition to the ordinance. Other township residents presented a petition to the board calling for the ordinance to be put to a public vote in 1996, the earliest possible date.

MCLUC strongly favors land use planning that would protect farmland, enhance agriculture and recreation businesses, and strengthen the Bear Lake village center by concentrating commercial activity there. Several township residents said the new Bear Lake zoning ordinance puts the economic aspirations of a few powerful landowners and township board members ahead of the community’s right to decide the best uses of its land. Bonnie Harnish, the only township board member who voted against the ordinance, is involved in a community campaign to overturn it.

Energy Industry Seeks Tax Break

Arguing that declining prices and increasing costs are hurting its competitiveness, oil and gas producers in Michigan are campaigning to "revitalize" the industry by lowering their taxes.

At a public hearing held in Traverse City in March, Bill Stephens, executive vice president of CMS Nomeco Oil and Gas Company, made the proposal on behalf of the Michigan Oil and Gas Association. Mr. Stephens called for the state to reduce severance taxes on production from oil and gas wells. Although Mr. Stephens said the tax cut would initially cost the state almost $7 million annually, he predicted it soon would be recovered because more wells would be drilled and more oil and gas would be produced.

Mr. Stephens made the proposal to the state Senate Committee on Economic Development. Explaining that oil and gas prices have dropped by half since 1984, Mr. Stephens added that royalty income to the state and some 15,000 property owners across Michigan also has declined.

In a letter to Senator Bill Schuette, the committee’s chairman, MCLUC questioned the industry’s description of its anemic economic condition, and outlined several points that the Legislature should consider regarding MOGA’s request.

Michigan energy producers are busy planning and installing Antrim gas wells at a record-setting pace. In the first three months of 1995, according to the DNR, producers applied for 647 new Antrim drilling permits, nearly double the number during the same period in 1992, which was the previous record year. The intensifying drilling comes even as natural gas prices hover around $1.80 a thousand cubic feet, which indicates that the drilling is not as price-sensitive as the industry contends.

If the Legislature is prepared to reduce taxes for the oil and gas industry, other worthwhile goals should be tied to the tax break. Two of the most important are: 1) improving environmental protections in Antrim gas fields, and 2) increasing financial benefits and property rights for the thousands of land owners who do not own their mineral rights. In exchange for such a large tax reduction, the energy industry should agree to a small tax increase levied by townships to protect the land and all Michigan residents. (See "MCLUC Launches New Campaign" on the front page).

State Awaits New Spacing Order

Testimony concluded in February. Final arguments were made in March. But the Department of Natural Resources has yet to issue a new spacing order for Antrim gas development. Officials in Lansing say the volume of data filed in the case, one of the most closely watched in years, is the cause of the lengthening delay.

MCLUC, along with a coalition of other groups, has called for Antrim natural gas wells to be spaced a minimum of 160 acres apart. The industry’s own technical and economic data supports the wider spacing. Among the large energy companies that favor it are Shell and Amoco. Smaller companies are pressing for 80-acre spacing.

In anticipation of a wider spacing order, the gas industry has flooded the DNR with hundreds of applications for new drilling permits, many of them for wells spaced closer than 80 acres.

Among those who protested the sudden activity was Savoy Oil and Gas, a Traverse City-based company. In March, Savoy filed a formal petition with the DNR to temporarily halt new drilling permits until the spacing hearing was complete. The company said it took the action because a competitor was encroaching on one of its developments in Manistee County. Savoy’s petition was supported by the Attorney General, the staff of the DNR, the state Public Service Commission, and many energy companies.

Savoy’s call for a moratorium on permitting was similar to an appeal the Manistee County Board of Commissioners made last December. The commissioners said they feared "Antrim development done in a rush," would threaten drinking water and a salt bed used by two companies in the city of Manistee.

The outcome was the same in both cases. R. Thomas Segall, Assistant Supervisor of Wells at the DNR, rejected the appeals for a temporary delay in approving new wells.

MCLUC Wins Award

The Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council has awarded the MCLUC Reporter its Environmentalist of the Year Award for communications and media. For two decades NMEAC has been one of the region’s most influential grass roots voices for environmental protection. The award was made on the eve of Earth Day. We are grateful to NMEAC and its supporters for recognizing and encouraging our efforts.

A Hydrocarbon Boom

Benzie, Manistee Second Most Active Drilling Region in Michigan

The pace of Antrim Shale development in Northwest Michigan is accelerating, despite record-low prices for natural gas. Northwestern Natural Gas has proposed the first major development in Benzie County, a 22-well project in Colfax Township and a portion of Manistee County’s Cleon Township. In Manistee County, 74 new drilling permits were approved between January and March, second only to Antrim County, according to the DNR.

In all, 318 gas wells and 13 waste disposal wells are planned for the two counties, with many more to come. In Benzie County, Colfax Township now has 21 gas wells underway. In Manistee County the breakdown for gas wells is: Bear Lake (153), Pleasanton (65), Springdale (34) Maple Grove (14), Onekama (12), Brown (11), Manistee (5), Cleon (4), Stronach (2), and Norman (1). Since the last issue of the MCLUC Reporter, 112 more wells have been drilled, permitted, or proposed. (Sources: DNR; Michigan Oil and Gas News).

Township Location Mineral Owner Gas Company Status

BENZIE COUNTY

Colfax, Section 23 Steed Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 24 State of Michigan/Colfax/Steed Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 26 Long Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 26 Pabis Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 27 Hill Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 27 Griner Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 28 Lundquist Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 28 State of Michigan/Colfax/Johnson Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 28 Crystal Village Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 33 Glenn Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 33 Ruhlman Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 33 Benzie Road Commission Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 34 Bailey Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 34 Cobb Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 34 Smith Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Colfax, Section 34 Clouse Northwestern Natural Gas Permit Issued

Colfax, Section 34 Clouse Northwestern Natural Gas Permit Issued

Colfax, Section 35 Milliron Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

MANISTEE COUNTY

Bear Lake, Section 1 Mackey Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 3 Anderson Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 3 State of Michigan/Bear Lake Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 10 Darbee Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 10 Myers Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 10 Ziehm Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 14 Nystrom Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 14 Nystrom Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 15 Valiquett Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 15 Valiquett Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 19 Acker Dynamic Development Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 19 Acker Dynamic Development Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 25 Asiala Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 25 Asiala Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 25 Caryl Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 25 Sanborn Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 27 Basile Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 27 Hilliard Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 27 Hoffer Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 27 Lutz Savoy Oil and Gas Permit issued

Bear Lake, Section 27 Mattison Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 27 Russell Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 28 Berryhill Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 28 Berryhill Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 28 Briske Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 28 Briske Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 28 Briske Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 28 Meister Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 28 Refke Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 29 Gill Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 29 Gill Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 29 Waterman Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 29 Watson Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 29 Watson Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 33 Koskela Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 33 Martin Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 33 Sedelmaier Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 33 Zalud Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 34 Hoffer Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 34 Meister Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 34 Zimmerman Savoy Oil and Gas Permit Issued

Bear Lake, Section 36 McKechneay Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 36 McKechneay Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 36 McKechneay Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 36 Anderson Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 36 Anderson Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 36 Anderson Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 36 Anderson Terra Energy Application Pending

Bear Lake, Section 36 Anderson Terra Energy Application Pending

Brown, Section 9 BBJ Properties Miller Oil Application Pending

Brown, Section 9 Milosh Miller Oil Application Pending

Brown, Section 9 Sadler Miller Oil Permit Issued

Brown, Section 10 Howes Miller Oil Application Pending

Brown, Section 15 Mattison Miller Oil Application Pending

Brown, Section 15 Mattison Miller Oil Application Pending

Brown, Section 15 Quality Hardwoods Miller Oil Application Pending

Brown, Section 15 Tompke Miller Oil Permit Issued

Brown, Section 15 Tompke Miller Oil Application Pending

Brown, Section 16 Mattison Miller Oil Application Pending

Brown, Section 16 Soller Miller Oil Application Pending

Cleon, Section 4 Hernadi Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Cleon, Section 4 Hernadi Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Cleon, Section 4 Benzie Road Commission Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Cleon, Section 4 Noonan Northwestern Natural Gas Application Pending

Maple Grove, Section 5 Piesczak Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Maple Grove, Section 5 Blanchard Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Maple Grove, Section 6 Breitner Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Maple Grove, Section 6 Girven Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Maple Grove, Section 17 Leppala Terra Energy Application Pending

Maple Grove, Section 17 Leppala Terra Energy Application Pending

Maple Grove, Section 19 Gustafson Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Maple Grove, Section 21 Grossnickle Terra Energy Application Pending

Maple Grove, Section 21 Grossnickle Terra Energy Application Pending

Pleasanton, Section 14 Miller Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 22 Setzke Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 22 Setzke Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 23 Anderson Oilfield Investments Application Pending

Pleasanton, Section 23 Anderson Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 27 Eldridge Oilfield Investments Drilled

Pleasanton, Section 27 Sippola Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 27 Sippola Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 33 Schafer Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 34 State Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending

Pleasanton, Section 35 Cutler Oilfield Investments Drilled

Pleasanton, Section 35 Martin Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 35 Poulin Oilfield Investments Permit Issued

Pleasanton, Section 35 State Oilfield Investments Application Pending

Pleasanton, Section 35 State Oilfield Investments Application Pending

Pleasanton, Section 36 Adair Dynamic Development Application Pending

Pleasanton, Section 36 Adair Dynamic Development Application Pending

Pleasanton, Section 36 Adair Dynamic Development Application Pending

Pleasanton, Section 36 Adair Dynamic Development Application Pending

Springdale, Section 3 Merskin Oilfield Investments Application Pending

Springdale, Section 32 Kuuttila Savoy Oil and Gas Application Pending