CHARLESTON - Local state senators are calling the Marcellus shale bill passed by the Senate Tuesday a step in the right direction.
The House Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, advanced a separate version of the bill that reflects the Senate's changes plus others sought by environmental and industry groups. With lawmakers meeting in a special session convened solely for Marcellus rules, that version is up for a House vote today.
The Senate unanimously passed the proposed Marcellus shale bill, 34-0, Tuesday that included greater permit fees, buffer zones and regulatory oversight for natural gas drillers.
Sen. David Nohe, R-Wood, said the Senate added seven to eight amendments to the bill, which included provisions for surface landowners who will be affected.
The Senate Judiciary Committee amended the bill to bolster its efforts to ensure surface owners receive notice before operators send survey crews or begin drilling. One change requires prior notice when a developer has picked a well site, and not just when it applies for a permit.
Senators approved additional changes Tuesday before passing the bill, such as by calling for notices to be published in newspapers.
The Senate committee exempted wells with pending permit applications from the bill's provisions. It also amended the measure so its buffer zones won't apply to additional wells drilled at existing sites.
"Now we are waiting to see what comes back from the House," Nohe said. "I think it was the best compromise we could come up with that still stayed in line with what was requested."
Nohe said the bill, as passed by the Senate, is more in line with regulations with other states drilling in the Marcellus shale.
"We had complaints," he said of some interests complaining the $10,000 fee for an initial well and $5,000 for each additional well at a site were too high. However, if companies are willing to spend around $3 million for a well, those fees are reasonable, especially since they will help pay for additional inspectors to safeguard natural resources, such as water and other environmental concerns, he said.
Many people are expecting a financial boon to the state from this gas drilling.
Lawmakers have been trying to develop policy and regulations to oversee the development.
Delegate Bill Anderson, R-Wood, said the House Judiciary Committee considered 20 proposed amendments to the bill.
Other House Judiciary changes include one allowing DEP's secretary to propose different buffer zones for dwellings when warranted. Another would require the secretary to report all regulatory waivers to lawmakers annually.
Boley said the bill the Senate passed was one people could agree on.
''It is something we can live with,'' she said. ''I have gotten calls from people who said this is probably the best deal we are going to get.''
Provisions in the bill will help to measure the economic impact from the development of the Marcellus shale formation, from jobs created to annual payroll, Boley said.
Boley said the House apparently has a lot more issues with the bill. She feels that the final bill will end up being different from what senators initially passed when the House is done with it.
''I still felt it is a good starting point,'' she said.
In the absence of legislation specifically crafted for this form of drilling, West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection has already granted 1,655 Marcellus well permits and is considering another 206, Secretary Randy Huffman told lawmakers on Monday.
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin has asked lawmakers to consider a modified version of a regulatory proposal drafted by a special joint committee. The pending bill seeks to address such topics as surface owner rights, and protections for area property, water sources and secondary roads.
Several lawmakers have questioned the legislation's scope. It would only apply to new horizontal wells that will disturb at least three acres or consume at least 120,000 gallons of water a month.
Environmental groups argue that this approach wrongly leaves out smaller operations and those that rely on conventional, vertical wells. They also complain that some of the spacing requirements are insufficient, and disagree when the bill measures distances from the center of a well site and not the edge.
(The Associated Press contributed to this story.)
