planning for oil and gas drilling in residential areas - southlake, tx case study.pdf

7/27/2019 Planning for Oil and Gas Drilling in Residential Areas - Southlake, TX Case Study.pdf

1/17

SUMMER 2013 LAND USE & ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Planning for Oil & Gas

Drilling in ResidentialAreas:A Case Study of Southlake, Texas

Maxwell, John P

7/11/2013


2/17

1

Introduction:

During the 83rd legislative session of the Texas House of Representatives, there were several

bills which dealt with the regulation of the oil and gas industry. Many mainly had to do with

trying to increase the rights of landowners when it comes to oil and gas drilling and

development on the surface of their property. Under Texas property law, the mineral rights

and surface rights are two distinct estates. The mineral rights are generally favored when it

comes to the severance of those minerals from the earth.

These conflicts between the two estates in Texas come to the forefront of a land-use dispute in

the city of Southlake. This prosperous suburb of the DFW metroplex had a very combative

discussion when it came to the development of shale gas through hydraulic fracturing. The

conflict over urban drilling has played out throughout the North Texas area in the past five to

six years as there was a huge push to develop the Barnett Shale.i The increasing deployment

of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling meant much more lateral space could be

covered with a smaller number of wells which could be spudded in a given place. The

discovery of the Barnett Shale pushed the development of leases into more urban/suburban

areas. There has not been much case law with respect to development of the mineral estate

taking place within urban/suburban areas. Generally the Texas Supreme Court has ruled:

that the owner of the mineral estate has the right to use so much of the surface estate as is

reasonably necessary for exploration and development of the minerals, without compensation

to the surface owner for such use.ii The accommodation doctrine states that the mineral

owner must accommodate the existing use of the surface estate so the doctrine in the context

of a suburban/urban environment becomes more complicated in the context of a residential

area where use becomes more ambiguous from a surface/home owners point of view.iii


3/17

2

Landmen working for the oil & gas companies had usually dealt with mainly rural

landowners/farmers who were not much impacted by one vertical drill that lasted a short

time. This researcher spoke to one of the residents who signed a lease with a gas company and

gave her experience with working with the landmen.ivShe felt that the companies used the

money and the threat of breaking a contract as a very real threat. These same landmen who

had dealt with the rural ranchers and farmers who less concerned with the siting of the

drilling rig as it was acres or miles away from their home, were now negotiating with college

educated, informed, white-collar workers. With a new class of people to deal with, the

companies started to have to answer for these new and unfamiliar industrial processes

appearing in suburban backyards. The gas companies tried to use the same technique that has

worked for many decades before: wave some money in the landowners face and they wont

ask any questions. The person that I spoke with stated that the gas company pursued some of

the more influential people in the area to turn them and get them on the side of the

companies. This seemed to work well at first, but when you get into a place like Southlake,

Texas money will not be the only consideration that people will factor into their decision over

whether or not to support drilling. The Southlake resident that I interviewed was concerned

over the uncertainty over this new process of hydraulic fracturing. She directly asked the gas

company if they could guarantee that this process was safe and they could not. Since the oil

and gas companies and their drilling contractors would not answer any tough questions about

the processes at the hydraulic fracturing site there was a huge gap for misinformation and

conjecture to spread.

The focus of the paper will be a retrospective conflict assessment of the process for developing

this ordinance. The first section will discuss the conflict and the process. The second section

will examine the process which could have been used in a way to de-escalate the parties and


4/17

3

dial back the tension/personal attacks which occurred during the course of this process. This

examination will allow the researcher to take the place of the mediator and attempt to make

conclusions and give recommendations that could have improved the overall process. The

normative judgments are taking from the class material which is cited herein.

Ordinance Dispute

From 2004 up until about 2007, wells were allowed to be drilled under a specific use permit

(SUP). The application would go from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the full

Council for a vote. This was in the years before hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling

made it easier to access the hydrocarbon zones within shale formations.v The initial

ordinance was passed in 2008 without as much public engagement as the ordinance. There

were work session and discussion as the council amended the Comprehensive Zoning

Ordinance, Southlakes Master Comprehensive Plan, and Section 9.5, Article IV of the citys

City Code. The ordinance at that time left several issues untouched with the main conflict of

setbacks remaining unresolved.

Approximately three years later in 2011, the council received well drilling permit applications

from XTO and Chesapeake. First, applications came in, went to council and discussed what it

meant for Southlake. Then the applications went to Planning and Zoning and then to council.

The citizen that I spoke with was concerned that the council would use the cudgel of the

signed leases to force people to accept that drilling would take place. The resident told me

that her agreement stated that the company would have to follow the 2008 ordinance, but

these new permits were asking for a variance for the setbacks in the initial ordinance. But

before the final approval of the permit could be granted, the issue of drilling was beginning to

become contentious and acrimonious, that the council would like to include public comment

and get the input from people that would help with working through all of the information.


5/17

4

This contention resulted in the council instituting a three, then six and finally a nearly ten-

month moratorium on drilling within the city of Southlake.vi,vii,viii

During the moratorium, the council directed Mr. Ken Baker head of the Southlake Planning

and Development department and his staff to research and study how other communities

were dealing with drilling in urban areas and engage with the public to address their

concerns. The mechanism that the council used to work through this is the Planning and

Zoning Task Force. The Task Force consisted of staff from the Planning Commission which

went out to conduct interviews and collect information from other localities in the Barnett

Shale and in North Texas whom was beginning to see drilling appear in urban and suburban

areas. This data and other public testimony were collected in a series of Southlake Program

for the Involvement of Neighborhoods (SPIN) meetings.

The evaluation process took about one year to complete its study and helped to make the

recommendations for the initial ordinance to the city council. Within this group of people,

Mr. Baker indicated that the opinion seemed to be split down the middle between the people

who wanted to allow drilling with Southlake and those who would like to outright ban it

everywhere within the city limits. The amount of public input as well as the number of SPIN

meetings was by far the biggest issue that the Planning and Zoning Commission has faced.

This is not all that surprising given that the Planning commission regularly deals with issues

that are contained in a specific area, where the development of the ordinance was going to

effect the entirety of Southlake and created the criteria for which drilling must meet in order

to be allowed to operate within the city. Mr. Baker was very clear in that this issue generated

lots of passion on both sides and at times was difficult to get people to offer testimony in an

objective and dispassionate manner. As far as the make-up of those people who were offering


6/17

5

testimony, Mr. Baker indicated that it was about 85% individual citizens who were making

public comment and testimony for the ordinance.

For the decision making process, the Planning and Zoning commission employed third-party

experts to help the city complete the scientific and objective basis to offer up a permit regime

within the city. The use of a petroleum engineer as well as an environmental scientist was key

in creating an objective set of rules for which the operators of oil and gas wells would be

subject to. These meetings went through several different setback scenarios for the ordinance

to use for any approval of drilling permits within the city. The city planning department

prepared maps [Appendix I] which showed these scenarios of different outcomes for the

ordinance and what that setback radius would entail.ix The city attorney, Allen Taylor

continued to apprise the council of the legal risk of adopting a large setback which could be

construed as an effective ban of drilling and could open the city to lawsuits for regulatory

takings. He especially outlined the 2011 decision of the 14th Court of Appeals in re City of

Houston vs. Maguire Oil Company as a cautionary tale for setting arbitrary setback

requirements and the way the courts will view a city's interference with the oil company's

right to drill In this case the withdrawal of a previously granted well permit constituted a

regulatory taking for which compensation was due under Tex. Const. art. I, 17 because the

evidence showed that the cityintended to stop the oil company from drilling regardless of

whether a permit had been issued and had no intention of allowing the oil company to drill.x

The City Council and the staff in the Planning and Zoning Commission used the findings of

Mr. Baker and his staff to responding to the publics concern for drilling in the Southlake

area. The council had several meetings and work sessions before the final ordinance was

passed on October 18th, 2011.xi [See Appendix II for ordinance summary and timeline] When


7/17

6

this ordinance was completed, the city council was unanimous in adopting the regulations

and well permitting ordinance. The final ordinance, 880-B was passed with the 1,000 foot

setback requirement while not directly dealing with the variance issue.xii The interested

parties in hydraulic fracturing ordinance dispute completed the process with the passage of

the ordinance, but the terminating of leases in Southlake, may have more to do with the drop

in natural gas prices, rather than an crafted, enduring agreement which will stand up to

pressure should the price of natural gas rise and drilling in Southlake is once again pursued

vigorously.

The main source for the information on the development of Ordinance 880-B was provided

by Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Director of Planning and Development Services with the city of

Southlake. As illustrated the chart diagram of the interested parties [Figure I] there are five

main interest groups that are part of the discussion for this public policy dispute. Each group

will have their positions outlined to help illustrate where the conflicts arise from. Ms. Harris,

the Southlake resident who I spoke with was involved with the S.T.A.N.D. group.

Positions Those who supported drilling did not want the government stopping them from

getting all the money that was coming to them by way of royalties and lease payments. This is

a classic case of big business trampling over the surface estate vs. overzealous government

willfully blocking the use of constitutionally guaranteed property rights. This government ban

could be interpreted as a taking which the government must compensate the owner of that

property right for not allowing that right to be developed.xiii

I. Surface Estate this group is comprised of all those in Southlake who own their propertya. This group position is that drilling should not occur in proximity to them without compensation

or remedy from the operator. The group has a more general opposition to the development, but

is less organized than the next group in that opposition.


8/17

7

II. Southlake Taxpayers Against Neighborhood Drilling (S.T.A.N.D.) collection of people withmuch stronger and specific opposition to any drilling within the city of Southlake

a. The position of this group is stated simply: We oppose gas drilling and pipeline placement inclose proximity to our neighborhoods, schools and businessesxiv

b. Our mission is to work with community and government officials, and if necessary, use allavailable legal means to minimize the negative impact of drilling on the health, safety and

property value of our family friendly community.

c. In light of the increasing NEGATIVE FACTS regarding natural gas drilling - its impact on air,water, and food, that ultimately lead to physical health issues and loss of property values, the

path is clearNo VARIANCES, stick to our ordinances!

III. Mineral Estate this group which is more diffuse than the previous two, wants drilling to take placeand it be allowed in order for their royalties to be paid

a. Interests: to allow drilling to commence and allow for the royalty owners to be compensated fortheir constitutionally protected property right.

IV. Southlake Citizens For Property Rights this group is analogous to the S.T.A.N.D. group but is inthe pro-drilling camp.xv

a. Interests: a group that represents and lobbies for the protection of the mineral estates propertyright

b. This group sees property rights as something akin to breathing and taking the ability to developthat right is what they compare to stripping them of their liberty

c. A quote on the cached version of their website is from Mark Levin and is stated as follows: "In acivil society private property and liberty are inseparable... The illegitimate denial or diminution

of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty."xvi

V. Industry (XTO & Chesapeake)a. Interests to develop leases and to sell the natural gas through the fracking process.

b. Chesapeake sent a very public letter to all of the 1,400 leaseholders in Southlake condemningthe city council and stating that the new ordinance was too restrictive to allow any drilling to

take placexvii


9/17

8

Due to the number of positions taken which have varying degrees of rhetoric and risk

tolerance, this negotiation turned sour and pitted neighbor against neighbor throughout the

city.xviii The citys role in this process should have been to seek outside assistance in mediation

which would help de-escalate the process and help to focus on interests rather than the

positions of the people.xix My recommendation would have been to use a mediator to help

with getting the process started and move these groups off of positions and towards an

interest-based bargaining technique.

Retrospective Diagnosis for Mediation

Although there were many issues that had to do with the debate of hydraulic fracturing within

the city of Southlake, when focusing directly on the conflict between the mineral rights and

surface rights was primarily manifested in the setbacks. Setbacks became one of the main

concerns of the citizens. Instituting a policy of a greater setback distance could effectively ban

the development of the mineral estate. The muddles process for establishing when variances

could be granted became the two points as to where the positions of each group ran up

against each other. The mediation process could help illuminate the interests of each side and

help to set a consensus derived distance for the setback number. Negotiating around the

setback number would be a great place to address the interests of both sides. The interests of

those who are surface rights holder is boiled down to public safety. The concept of public

safety had to do with minimization of risk of accidents. The interests of the mineral estate are

to exercise their constitutional right to their property.

Using Roger Fisher and William Urys Getting to Yes is a practice that is designed to allow

for outcomes which are win-win for the parties involved in the dispute. Fisher and Ury have

four foundation principles which are overarching themes within a principled negotiation. The

four major points are: (1) separate the people from the problem, (2) focus on interests, not


10/17

9

positions, (3) generating a wide variety of possibilities before deciding what to do (4) insist

that the result be based on some objective standard. Within these frameworks there are

considerations to take into account since this specific case deals with a public policy dispute

in the context of land-use. Within the Fisher/Ury maxims, there are other guidelines which

will come into the formulation for a solution and will also play an important role in the

mediators job. Fishers dedication to the process is something the mediator should take into

account and use the idea of the product is the processxx

The first step that the negotiator could take is to organize the groups separately and see where

the problems exist and where the exact issue is located. The first step to start a consensus

negotiation process around the conflict around setbacks and variances of the siting of

hydraulically fractured wells within Southlake would have been to use the three frameworks

illustrated by Poitras & Bowen. Separately the groups should have an (1) appropriate

definition of the problem. Secondly, the mediator should design the process for an (2)

effective structure of negotiation between the different parties. Lastly, the mediator should

explore the (3) motivations of the stakeholder participation within the boundaries of the

mediation process to find the areas where an enduring agreement can be constructed.xxi

Defining the problem is a key to the process. Without framing it in a way that is satisfactory to

all parties, the groups may be unable to continue working in a way that allows for a

productive outcome. Poitras and Bowen state that A definition of a problem that begins with

whator how is more likely to lead to the development of a wider range of solutions.xxii The

mediator should recognize that these different collections of people may not have a previous

history of working together. This could lead to a lack of initial trust and expose the

differential knowledge and experience, value clashesand frequent uncertainty about the


11/17

10

viability of the proposed outcomes.xxiii The frame is a lens that can provide the groups with

an approach to the process. The mediator could frame this issue in a way that provided a

common ground to speak from. A frame in the case of Southlake could reference something

about the future of the community. With a focus on the community rather than each other,

the conflict could be dialed down and a new paradigm of active recognition in the other party

may be established. Allowing the groups to view people as other humans rather than abstract

ideas is very important for the group to begin its process of breaking down the areas of

difference. Framing is one method to recognize and define the problem. If the parties cannot

come together via this format, another option would be to pursue a conflict assessment.

One mechanism for the definition of the problem is to conduct a conflict assessment. This

assessment is especially important when it comes to land use and in the context of an

ordinance that deals specifically with the siting of drilling rigs. A conflict assessment will

gather information through interview, analyze the interview results, design a joint problem-

solving process and share the assessment with the interviewees.xxivThe conflict assessment is

a time-intensive way to go about solving problems as many dozen people may have to be

interviewed. However, this step is critical in the successful outcome of a land-use issue like

the drilling ordinance in Southlake. Each step of the conflict assessment may continually help

to flesh out the finalized ideas for the management of drilling. The conflict assessment will

interview the stakeholders across a number of differences including: relationships, values,

data conflicts, and structural conflicts.xxv

The conflict assessment will help the Southlake

community with determining the exact areas where the groups do not agree. When working

on a conflict assessment, the parties may engage in disagreements over what specific

references mean. The issues could get very contentious, yet the parties may be actually talking

about totally different things. When there seems to be an impasse building, one card that the


12/17

11

mediator could play is to take the group on a walk in the woods where the parties can be

pushed out of their myopic view of the issues and gain a new perspective. One way that the

Southlake group could have benefitted from the idea of a walk in the woods would be to have

the group tour several different rigs in the Barnett shale. The rigs, if at all possible, can each

be toured in such a way that the group can catch the entire process from the initial site

inspection to the final capping of the well. The parties would then get an idea of the noise,

smell, and general disturbance of what the drilling is actually like at each step in the process.

The groups would then be on equal footing as to actually physically watching drilling taking

place. The walk in the woods helps the parties to realize each sides legitimacy and can show

opponents of each side that fears and concerns are given concrete probabilities and risk

assessments rather than being at a conference table with a heated discussion over abstract

concepts. All of these techniques are aimed at separating the people from the problem and

allow for the groups to transcend a fixed pie mindset and aim for a larger pie for everyone.

The next step of structuring the negotiation will build off the information and relationships

that were secured in the definition phase of consensus building. All those involved should be

continually pushed to create value for everyone. Before this value process is completed, the

groups would have already met internally to discuss their Best Alternative to Negotiated

Agreement (BATNA). The BATNA will be the rational alternatives to the groups which will

construct a formula for each interest group to avoid irrational escalation of commitments

which can push positions forward and not keep interests at the foreground of the mediation.

Keeping the point where the group will walk-away (BATNA) with the leaders of the groups

will help to avoid sunk costs and trying win at all costs rather than getting a solution which

would satisfy the interests of the groups.xxvi The group has now enlarged the pie and has used

the information of the interests of the different groups. The BATNA can be hashed out among


13/17

12

the groups on the sides of the issue before the actual negotiation takes place. Since this is a

large multi-party discussion, meetings will likely look similar to the number of meetings that

actually took place in figure Z process of the city council, but it will be a more multilateral

process without the city council issuing recommendations or information that has not been

vetted through the process of the groups. The SPIN meetings become more important in this

format rather than council work sessions being the primary brainstorming sessions.

The negotiation should lead to an agreement that has built in adaptive management or

contingency agreements which helps to alleviate some of the risk tolerance issues that the

groups likely feel. Contingency agreements along the lines of the science and the risks to

safety would allow each side to claim value from the negotiation. The surface owners could

have assurances from the operators that the monitoring of air/water/land will be on-going.

This good neighbor agreement illustrated by Susskind would have a detailed monitoring

and shutdown provision beyond those required by law.xxvii XTO and Chesapeake could have

even trained the surface owners in Southlake to take measurements so there is no

disagreement over the bias of the scientific measuring. The contingency parts of the

negotiation can have an adaptive-management mechanism built into the agreement. Due to

the level of uncertainty that often exists in management of natural resources an

agreement that includes the best scientific evidence available at the time [will] result in

minimization and mitigation of impacts xxviii The ability of the surface-rights holders to get

a contingency agreement could be the missing piece to ensure that the process is active and

the oil and gas operators are not bad actors and jeopardize the health and safety of the

Southlake community.


14/17

13

The groups in the Southlake dispute were bogged down in a war of attrition over interests for

several years even after the initials ordinance was passed in 2008. Taking a higher-level view

of this dispute, it is easy to see that this entire discussion should have been organized into a

more formal discussion mechanism. As Roger Fisher stated: the product is the processxxix

and the city council should have initiated a mediation process which would have allowed the

groups to separate the people from the problemxxx and move toward a solution to the

conflict. Under this process, the SPIN meetings would have been a perfect time to build this

process with all the people who were involved. Southlake could have hired a neutral convertor

to begin a mediation process which could have involved the following process. Since these

stakeholders involved a community of people that had to interact after this dispute was

completed, it was important to assess the conflict and attempt to build a consensus process.

Through the process, the different stages of the negotiation has engaged stakeholder which

has satisfied the last consensus process building guideline, but the group must use the

Fisher/Ury principle of setting an objective standard for the process. This objective standard,

similar to what was completed for the city by a petroleum engineer and environmental analyst

and was presented at the 10/4/2011 Council working session cab help to sell the principals in

the dispute to be able to sell the agreement to their groups via an impartial expert.xxxi This

standard is a proxy for neutral validation of the negotiation and will help to make the

agreement enduring and a yes-able settlement for all interested people. Lastly, putting all

the information together and writing up the agreement should be a write-up that works

through the interests of each party systematically. The agreement on setbacks and when to

allow variances will address the interests of both groups through a solution which touches on

safety and economic development. For safety, this is where the contingency agreements come

into place. Companies will not just wave money in front of someone but will continuously


15/17

14

monitor air/water/land pollution to employ best practices in the field and allow for the

environmental groups to check on the operators and enforce the agreement. From the

economic development perspective, companies will have to find sites that are acceptable to

the public and allow for the drill pads to have horizontal bores to reach trapped gas so the rigs

do not have to dot the landscape. Have mineral interests and companies pool the resources so

everyone can be compensated even if the wells are located in an area that benefits one

mineral owner. The companies are developing the leases, compensating the mineral estate,

and promoting economic development must acknowledge the concerns of the other groups

that will inevitably creep up. In any kind of industrial process, it is essential the companies

show good faith to concerned citizens and environmental groups that they constantly strive to

prevent any ecological, property or noise trespasses and will not cut corners to degrade the

trust relationship.xxxii The agreement must work past positional arguments and it is vital the

mediation align interests in a way that solves the variance and setback solution without

crafting an ordinance that creates a taking or forces the community to be exposed to a public

health and safety risk. Creating the built-in aspect of contingency and adaptive-management

will allow the groups to continually update probabilities of an accident and be able to show

empirically the costs and benefits which can be told to council to be able to adjust the rules

according to what the monitoring and scientific data is showing.

Conclusion

After all is said and done, the process for getting all the information and completing the

ordinance may have been all for naught as most drilling in the Barnett shale ceased regardless

of ordinances/regulations, but mainly because the price of gas plummeted from ~$9.0

MMBTU in 2008 to ~$3.0 MMBTU in 2012.xxxiii The ordinance process achieved what one

group wanted in terms of stopping drilling, but the industry may have used the regulation as


16/17

15

an excuse instead of the economics of drilling. In a poll taking shortly after the ordinance was

passed, 41% said it was too restrictive, 35% it was not restrictive enough, 18% said it was fair

and 6% had no opinion.xxxivThe drilling may have stopped for now, but that is most likely all

attributed to the economics of the Barnett. If natural gas goes back to $8/MMBTU, the

industry and the mineral estate will likely push much harder than they did in the face of an

extreme shift in prices. Though this is a counterfactual argument, it is likely this ordinance

may not be enduring if there is a rise in prices. If the process would have followed a mediation

process which worked through all of the issues and led to a solution that both camps were

satisfied with, it would be much more certain that any change in the underlying fundamental

economics of the Barnett Shale would allow for Southlake to be well positioned to deal with

this land-use management conflict rather than relying on a wobbly position-based ordinance.

Works Cited Endnotes

i Hargrove, Brantley. "Fear and Fracking in Southlake." Dallas Observer. N.p., 24 Nov. 2011. Web. 21 June 2013.ii Maxwell, Billie Ann Texas Tug of War: A Survey of Urban Drilling and the Issues an Operator Will Face, Texas

Journal of Oil, Gas, and Energy Law, 4 June 2009. Web. 30 June 2013.iii McFarland, John. "Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog." Web log post. OIL AND GAS LAWYER BLOG. GRAVESDOUGHERTY HEARON & MOODY, 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 5 July 2013.ivHarris, Diane "Southlake Resident/ Lease Signer." Telephone interview. 8 July 2013.

vBaker, Ken "City of Southlake, Texas - Senior Director of Planning and Development Services." Telephoneinterview. 24 June 2013.

vi AP. "Southlake Halts Gas Drilling For 6 Months." DFW CBS. CBS, 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 25 June 2013.vii The City of Southlake. "City Adopts Gas Drilling Moratorium." MySouthlakeNews.com. N.p., 19 Jan. 2011.Web. 25 June 2013.viii Slade, Rachel. "Southlake Council Extends Gas Drilling Moratorium." Community Impact Newspaper. N.p.,22 June 2011. Web. 25 June 2013.ix Sakelaris, Nicholas. "Southlake Approves 1,000-foot Buffer from Gas Wells to Homes Read Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, 19 Oct. 2011. Web. 25 June 2013.x

342 S.W.3d 726; 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3306. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/07/04.xi United States. City Council. City of Southlake, Texas. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Article IV - Oil and Gas WellDrilling and Production Ordinance (Ordinance 880- B). N.p.: n.p., n.d. City of Southlake Website. 19 Oct. 2011.

Web. 26 June 2013.xii Ibidxiii Southlake City Council Work Session Date: 10/18/2011xiv"Key Facts." STAND - Southlake Taxpayers Against Neighborhood Drilling. N.p., 2011. Web. 1 July 2013.xvReuters. "Southlake Citizens For Property Rights Holding Petition Drive Meetings." Reuters. N.p., 23 Apr.2012. Web. 1 July 2013.xvi "Southlake Citizen's for Property Rights." Southlake CPR. N.p., 2012. Web. 1 July 2013.


17/17

16

xvii Platts. "Officials in Texas Town Defend Ordinance in Wake of Chesapeake Withdrawal." Platts. McGraw HillFinancial, 28 Nov. 2011. Web. 29 June 2013.xviii Hargrove, Brantley Op. Cit.xix Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in. New

York, NY: Penguin, 1991. Print.xx Ury, William. "What Roger Fisher Got Profoundly Right: Five Enduring Lessons for Negotiators." NegotiationJournal 29.2 (2013): 159-69. Print.xxi Poitras, Jean, and Robert E Bowen. "A Framework for Understanding Consensus-Building Initiation."

Negotiation Journal 18.3 (2002): 211-32. Print.xxiiIbidxxiiiGray, Barbara. "Strong Opposition: Frame-Based Resistance to Collaboration."Journal of Community &

Applied Social Psychology 14.3 (2004): 166-76. Print.xxivHoben, M., et al. Conducting Conflict Assessments in the Land Use Context: A Manual. Consensus Building

Institute and the Land Use Law Center, Pace University School of Law, 2000. Print.xxvCDR Associates. CONFLICT ANALYSIS AND STATEGY EXERCISE. Publication. N.p.: n.p., 2003. Print.

xxvi Bazerman, Max H. "Do You Know When to Walk Away?" Negotiation: A Newsletter from Harvard BusinessSchool Publishing and the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (2004): n. pag. Print.xxvii Susskind, Lawrence. "Dont Like Surprises? Hedge Your Bets with Contingent Agreements." Negotiation: A

Newsletter from Harvard Business School Publishing and the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School(2005): n. pag. Print.xxviii United States. Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program. Edwards Aquifer RecoveryImplementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan. By RECON Environmental, Inc., Hicks & Company, ZaraEnvironmental LLC, and BIO-WEST. N.p.: n.p., 2012. Print.xxixUry, Op. Cit.xxxFisher and Ury, Op. Cit.xxxi Sebenius, James K. "Level Two Negotiations: Helping the Other Side Meet Its Behind-the-TableChallenges." Negotiation Journal 29.1 (2013): 7-21. Print.xxxii Maxwell, Op. Cit.xxxiii Natural Gas Spot and Futures Prices (NYMEX), EIA.gov,http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_fut_s1_a.htmxxxiv "Council Approves New Ordinance." Community Impact [Grapevine/Colleyville/Southlake] Jan.-Feb. 2012,

1st ed., sec. 11: 3. Print.

planning for oil and gas drilling in residential areas - southlake, tx case study.pdf

Documents