In September of 2011, we first posted about the case of Butler v. Estate of Powers in which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed a Pennsylvania trial court decision holding that, under long-standing precedent, any grant of mineral rights that did not expressly include natural gas similarly did not include shale gas.  The Superior Court disagreed, relying on United States Steel Corp. v. Hoge, 468 A.2d 1380 (Pa. 1983)(Hoge II) which held that the party with the rights to coal also had rights to the coalbed gas contained in the coal.  Instead, the Superior Court remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on, in essence, whether shale gas is similar to coalbed gas and should be treated that way.  At the time we first discussed theButler case, we concluded: Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Case Update, Decisions of Note, Deeds, Drilling, Marcellus Shale, Mineral Rights, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Real Estate, Uncategorized

As a result of increasing development of natural gas drilling, pipelines are popping up everywhere.  And with them has come a mound of litigation.  In a February 5, 2013 decision, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled, as a matter of first impression, that permits issued by a state agency (in this case, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”)) under the federal Clean Water Act (the “CWA”) may be challenged only in federal court, and not in a state adjudicatory proceeding. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Clean Water Act, Drilling, Due Process, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Procedure, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas Act, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Permits, Procedure

Although they’ve been around forever, oil and gas leases continue to provide fodder for the courts, as we’ve discussed before, especially in light of the boom (or temporary bust, as some might argue) of shale gas drilling.  And it is exactly that boom (or bust) that brings us the decision in Beardslee v. Inflection Energy, LLC, No. 3:12-CV-00252 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2012). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Drilling, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Mineral Rights, Oil and Gas, Real Estate, Royalties

Some may be surprised to learn that the storage and production of natural gas do not always complement one another.  A conflict can occur when one gas company stores its gas by injecting it back into the ground, typically into a depleted gas field.  So long as gas pressure can be maintained underground, the depleted field provides a natural reservoir for storing gas.  If areas of low pressure are created near the storage area, the stored gas tends to migrate toward these areas. The drilling for and extraction of natural gas can create such low pressure zones.  Effectively, production activities near an underground storage area suck the gas away from where it is being stored. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Drilling, Exploration, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas, Nuisance, Oil and Gas, Storage

On Tuesday, in Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future v. Ultra Resources, Inc., No. 4:11-CV-1360 (M.D.PA. Sept. 24, 2012) — a case watched closely by natural gas stakeholders in Pennsylvania — Judge Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss a citizen suit brought by an environmental group challenging the validity of state air permits issued to the operator of a series of natural gas compressor stations, potentially opening the door for similar Federal court challenges to air permits previously issued by state regulators in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.  Approximately three years ago, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) issued separate authorizations for Ultra Resources, Inc. (“Ultra”) to construct seven compressor stations pursuant to a state general permit generally known as “GP-5.”  In issuing these authorizations, PADEP considered each of the compressor stations as a separate “facility.” If PADEP had considered the compressor stations to be a single “major” facility, then Ultra would have been required to obtain a more stringent non-attainment new source review (“NNSR”) permit before commencing construction. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Cases to Watch, Clean Air Act, Drilling, Emissions, Federal Procedure, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Permits

The Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC”) was created with the approval of Congress in 1961 through the Delaware River Basin Compact, an agreement between the New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the federal government for planning, conservation, utilization, development, management and control of the water resources of the Delaware River Basin (the “Basin”).  In June, 2010, the DRBC placed  a moratorium on natural gas development in the Basin, which includes areas within the Marcellus Shale formation, pending the adoption of regulations governing such development.  Draft regulations were published for comment in 2010, and revised draft regulations were published in November, 2011.  However, they have not yet been adopted by the DRBC, leaving the moratorium in place. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Decisions of Note, Drilling, Exploration, Marcellus Shale, NEPA, Oil and Gas, Standing

In April, we reported on an Arkansas Supreme Court case which held that, at least as of 1934, the term “mineral rights” included oil and gas as a matter of law.  But what about deeds of an older vintage?  Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court, inNicholson v. Upland Industrial Development Co., 2012 Ark. 326 (Sept. 13, 2012), ruled that a 1903 deed reserving “mineral rights” included oil and gas rights because at the time of the deed and in the general region where the deed was executed, that was the common understanding.  In other words, the per se rule announced in Staggs v, Union Pacific RR Co.* did not apply. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Arkansas, Deeds, Drilling, Exploration, Leases, Mineral Rights, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate

One of the very first things I was told by the senior partner when I started practicing law was that there isn’t an honest mistake that can’t be fixed, except blowing the statute of limitations. As a result, my calendar has limitations periods blocked out weeks, months and in some cases years in advance, and if there’s ever a question of when it runs, I use the earliest date. The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Impact Energy Resources, LLC v. Salazar, Nos. 11-4043 & 11-4057 (Sept. 5, 2012 10^th Cir.), is a cautionary tale to those who may not be as conservative. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Cases to Watch, Exploration, Federal Procedure, Interior, Leases, Mineral Leasing Act, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Public Lands, Statute of Limitations, Tenth Circuit, Tolling

Pennsylvania’s Act 13 of 2012, signed in February of this year, revised the Commonwealth’s Oil and Gas Act to accommodate and address the increased activity associated with the extraction of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale.  It included provisions for impact fees, environmental protections, and set-back restrictions.  In addition, it also required local municipalities to adhere to uniform zoning laws that would provide for the development of oil and gas resources in the Commonwealth.  Yesterday, in the case of Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 284 M.D. 2012 (July 26, 2012), the Commonwealth Court in a 4-3 decision held that provision of the law to be unconstitutional. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Act 13, Cases to Watch, Drilling, Due Process, Leases, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Procedure, Real Estate, Standing, Zoning

With increasing frequency, courts around the country are using their inherent power to control the proceedings before them in order to structure environmental and toxic tort cases in such a way as to reduce, as much as possible, cases to their essence and, more importantly, ensure that the time and resources of parties are not needlessly wasted on discovery or lengthy proceedings when spurious claims are brought.  And that’s exactly what has happened in the case of Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp., No. 2011 CV 2218 (Denver Co. Dist. Court  May 9, 2012), where the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against companies involved in drilling natural gas wells when the plaintiffs failed to show, prior to the initiation of discovery, that there was a prima facie basis for associating their personal injury claims with the defendants’ activities. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Decisions of Note, Drilling, Marcellus Shale, Medical Monitoring, Multi-District Litigation, Oil and Gas, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts