The EPA has issued its draft plan to study the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water in the U.S. Two state regulatory authorities have absolved frac’ed wells from responsibility for contaminating drinking water in Colorado and Texas. Maryland’s top einvornmental regulator urged lawmakers to impose a two-year moratorium on frac’ing, as Maryland’s legislature considers additional laws to regulate the practice. Meanwhile, the boom in shale gas drilling continues.
Recently some of my clients have received notices of class action settlements in Coll v. Abaco Operating, LLC, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, C.A. No. 2:08-CV-345 TJW. The case reveals a little-known aspect of royalty payments: many companies never reimburse their royalty owners for refunds of severance taxes.
Most royalty owners know little about severance taxes except that they are a deduction that regularly appears on their royalty check stubs. Texas imposes a tax on the value of all oil and gas produced in the state: 7.5% for gas and 4.6% for oil. Most producing states impose similar severance taxes. Pennsylvania has been debating whether to pass a severance tax in light of its budget problems and recent development of the Marcellus Shale in that state. Texas’ severance taxes are paid into its “rainy day fund” that has been much in the news of late.
Here is the closing statement of Range Resources filed with the Texas Railroad Commission after its hearing on complaints that Range’s Barnett Shale wells in Parker County have contaminated groundwater. It provides a good summary of the events to date and the evidence produced at the hearing. Range Production Company Closing Statement.pdf
Here is a link to a summary of the Range dispute prepared by Gene Powell, Editor of the Powell Barnett Shale Newsletter.
I always counsel my clients to provide in their oil and gas leases that they have the right to inspect and copy all documents of the lessee necessary to determine whether royalties have been paid correctly, and to audit the records of the lessee to confirm accurate payment of royalties. Royalty owners generally assume that the royalty payments they received have been calculated and paid as required by their leases. This is not always the case, as illustrated by a recent case, Shell Oil Company SWEPI LP v. Ross, 2010 WL 670549 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.], decided February 25, 2010. The case illustrates typical schemes used by producers to underpay royalty owners, and their efforts to prevent royalty owners from knowing how royalties are calculated and, when the royalty owners discover the underpayment, to prevent royalty owners from recovering the underpayment.
In Shell v. Ross, the trial court and Houston Court of Appeals held that Shell had underpaid royalties due to Ross. Shell has appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court refused to consider the case, but Shell has filed a motion for re hearing that is still pending. Other producers are very interested in the case: friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed by Chesapeake, Texas Oil & Gas Association, and the American Petroleum Institute asking the Court to reverse the Court of Appeals.
The facts of the case require some explanation but illustrate well the importance of verifying the correct calculation of royalties.
EPA’s order against Range Resources for allegedly charging groundwater with gas from its Barnett Shale wells has caused quite a stir.
The Texas Railroad Commission has issued two news releases, one on December 7 and one on December 8. Commission Chairman Victor Carrillo said that he has told EPA Regions 6 Administrator Al Armendariz that “EPA’s actions are premature as the Railroad Commission continues to actively investigate this issue and has not yet determined the cause of the gas. This EPA action is unprecedented in Texas, and commissioners will consider all options as we move forward.” Commissioner Michael Williams said “this is Washington politics of the worst kind. The EPA’s act is nothing more than grandstanding in an effort to interject the federal government into Texas business.” The December 8 press release said that the Commission has called a hearing for January 10 and “expects both parties, the EPA as well as Range Resources representatives, to appear before Hearings Examiners and testify as to the allegations made yesterday.” Range has said it will attend the hearing, but it understands that the EPA will not.
The Dallas Office of the Environmental Protection Agency issued the following press release today:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ordered a natural gas company in Forth Worth Texas to take immediate action to protect homeowners living near one of their drilling operations who have complained about flammable and bubbling drinking water coming out of their tap. EPA testing has confirmed that extremely high levels of methane in their water pose an imminent and substantial risk of explosion or fire. EPA has also found other contaminants including benzene, which can cause cancer, in their drinking water.
EPA has determined that natural gas drilling near the homes by Range Resources in Parker County, Texas has caused or contributed to the contamination of at least two residential drinking water wells. Therefore, today, EPA has ordered the company to step in immediately to stop the contamination, provide drinking water and provide methane gas monitors to the homeowners. EPA has issued an imminent and substantial endangerment order under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Parker County is located west of Fort Worth, Texas.
T. Boone Pickens has filed a lawsuit to protect his water rights in Hemphill County, a suit that highlights the problems with Texas’ attempt to regulate pumping from aquifers in the State. The suit, Mesa Water, L.P. and G&J Ranch, Inc. v. Texas Water Development Board, was filed in Travis County in April. Water is a little outside the scope of my blog, but this fight concerns the Ogallala Aquifer in the Texas Panhandle, where I was born and grew up, and so is of special interest to me.
To understand the litigation, it is necessary to know something about the Ogallala and about Texas’ efforts to regulate underground water resources.
A case now before the Texas Supreme Court that addresses issues important to Texas mineral owners. The case, BP America Production Company, et al., v. Stanley G. Marshall, Jr., et al., No. 09-0399, asks the Texas Supreme Court to address the applicability of the laws of adverse possession to mineral interests for the first time since the Court’s decision in the Pool case, Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Pool, decided in 2003. To understand the importance of BP v. Marshall, it is necessary to first review the Pool case.
An interesting case has recently been filed in Louisiana challenging the authority of the Louisiana Department of Conservation to approve pooled units containing multiple wells. In Gatti et al. vs. State of Louisiana, et al., Number 589350, Division 23, filed in the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish, the plaintiffs sued the State Department of Conservation and several operators in the Haynesville field, including Chesapake, Encana, Exco, Conoco Phillips, Petrohawk, SWEPI, EOG, Questar, Forest and XTO, claiming that the Department of Conservation was routinely allowing the drilling of “alternate unit wells” on previously established units, in violation of Louisiana law. A copy of the petition may be found here.
Louisiana has a forced-pooling statute that allows an operator to propose to the Department of Conservation a unit for a well which, if approved, forces all mineral owners in the unit to pool their interests for the drilling and production of that well. According to the plaintiffs, this statute only authorizes the Department to approve units large enough to cover an area drained by one well. The practice in Lousiana for the Cotton Valley and Haynesville fields is to obtain orders for 640-acre units, and later obtain approval to drill additoinal “alternate unit wells” on those units. The suit contends that this practice is unfair to the owners of minerals and royalties in the unit, and violates state law. The suit seeks certification of a class action on behalf of all owners of mineral rights in Haynesville Zone in Louisiana. It seeks a declaration that the Department has no authority to establish a unit having an area in excess of the area drainable by one well, and that any such unit is “null and void.” The suit also seeks unspecified damages against the defendant companies.
The Bureau of Land Management has signed a settlement agreement in which it agreed to “suspend” oil and gas leases covering BLM lands in Montana until it has completed a review of the effect of oil and gas development on greenhouse gas emissions.
The settlement was entered in Montana Environmental Information Center, et al. v. United States Bureau of Land Management, Case No. 08-178-M-DWM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, on March 11, 2010. The case was brought by citizens groups who contended that federal law required the BLM to consider the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development on the environment, and specifically the greenhouse gas emissions caused by oil and gas well drilling and production, before granting oil and gas leases on lands in Montana.
The plaintiffs’ petition contains some interesting facts:
Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog