Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog

Published on: October 29, 2012

“Energy Independence”?

We’re in the crazy election season once again, and once again all candidates have promised “energy independence.” Newt Gingrich promised to lower gasoline prices. President Obama takes credit for low natural gas prices. Governor Romney says we can eliminate imports of crude oil. Presidential candidates have promised energy independence ever since the oil embargo in Jimmy Carter’s administration. The candidates know that, in fact, government policies have little to do with energy prices, and there is little they can do to influence those prices. It might be good to look at a little history.

First, natural gas prices are still essentially a domestic phenomenon. Although transportation of liquefied natural gas is beginning, it is still very expensive in comparison to domestic prices. And natural gas prices are still essentially a matter of domestic supply and demand. Consider these graphs:

U.S. Gas Production Graph.jpg

NG Wellhead Price Graph.jpg

Prices for natural gas spiked in the last decade; production increased; and prices declined. Supply and demand.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 16, 2012

Guar, XL Pipeline Protests, and Hart on the Eagleford

By John McFarland

Three interesting stories:

Guar, a bean grown mostly in India, has become a hot commodity because of its use as an additive in frac fluid. See this CNBC Report. Indian farmers are getting rich, American farmers are looking into growing the bean, and Halliburton’s income is down “due to increased costs, particularly for guar gum.”

Protests are popping up all along the XL pipeline being built by Transcanada to transport heavy oil from Canada. Eight demonstrators were arrested in Wood County for chaining themselves to heavy equipment. Seven platforms have been built in trees and occupied by protestors within the pipeline right-of-way. Protestors appeared at the Texas Capitol. Actress Daryl Hannah has joined demonstrations along the pipeline route. See Austin Statesman article here.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 10, 2012

More Studies of Barnett Shale Activities’ Impact on Air Quality

By John McFarland

The debate about effects of Barnett Shale drilling and production on air quality in the Dallas-Fort Worth area continues. The debate started when Al Armendariz, then a professor at Southern Methodist University, published a study in 2009 concluding that increased drilling activity in the DFW area would greatly increase polllution and ozone levels. Armendariz postulated that in the nine counties included in the D-FW metroplex area, gas drilling produced about 112 tons per day of pollution, compared with 120 tons per day from vehicle traffic. His study was sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund, and was heavily criticized by industry. Armendariz was later appointed head of the Dallas office of the EPA, and resigned earlier this year amid Congressional criticism of remarks he made about EPA enforcement policies.

As a result of Armendariz’s study, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality installed automatic air monitors at locations within the Barnett Shale area. Eight automatic gas chromatographs now sample air twenty times each day for 46 volatile organic compounds. The monitors cost $250,000 each and cost $100,000/year to operate. Readings from the sample analyses are posted by the TCEQ and can be found here. According to an analysis by Powell Shale Digest, none of the 236,120 air samples taken by these devices have shown amounts of VOCs exceeding limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

There are also sixteen samplers in the DFW area that measure ozone. Powell’s analysis of that data shows that ozone levels in the Barnett Shale have been dropping even as drilling activity in the area increased:

Continue reading →

Published on: October 2, 2012

Reuters Pursues Chesapeake Again

By John McFarland

Reuters published a new story on Chesapeake recently, continuing its series critical of the company and its CEO Aubrey McClendon. In this article Reuters reports on its research of Rule 37 cases filed by Chesapeake. Incredibly, Reuters researchers identified all Chesapeake Rule 37 requests back to January 2005 – all 1,628 of them, more than twice the number filed by the next most-frequent filer, XTO (now owned by Exxon). Reuters also got hold of “hundreds of internal Chesapeake emails and thousands of pages of documents” showing how Chesapeake deals with landmen and landowners in lease plays, and the article cites some of those documents relating in particular to Chesapeake’s lease acquisitions in Michigan.

A “Rule 37” exception is a permit to drill a well that would otherwise violate the applicable spacing rules for the well because it is closer than those rules allow to an adjacent tract. In the last few years Chesapeake has made extensive use of Rule 37 exceptions, particularly in the urban portions of the Barnett Shale play in Tarrant County, where most lot owners own the minerals under their homes. Some lot owners refuse to lease on any terms. These unleased owners create “holes” in the pooled units Chesapeake puts together for drilling horizontal shale wells, and sometimes there are so many unleased tracts in the units that it is impossible to drill a horizontal well without coming too close to the unleased tracts. So, Chesapeake asks the Railroad Commission to let it put its well closer to those unleased tracts than Barnett Shale field rules would otherwise allow. Chesapeake is required to give the unleased homeowner notice of its application for the Rule 37 exception, but most homeowners don’t have the resources to contest the application, and if no objections are filed the Commission typically grants the exception. As a result, the Chesapeake well, when completed, is likely to drain hydrocarbons from under the unleased tract, and the owner of the unleased tract receives no compensation. Reuters characterizes Chesapeake’s tactic as “exploit[ing] little-known laws to force owners to hand over drilling rights and sometimes forfeit profits.”

In April of this year, Reuters reported on Aubrey McClendon’s loans of some $1.5 billion to finance his share of drilling costs on his 1% interest in Chesapeake wells, alleging a conflict of interest. In June, Reuters issued a story questioning whether Chesapeake and Encana had colluded to avoid competition in their rush to acquire oil and gas leases in Michigan, resulting in a Department of Justice investigation of possible anti-trust violations. At least partly as a result of Reuters’ stories, McClendon resigned as chairman of the board, and a new set of directors was elected.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 27, 2012

Two Interesting Graphs from EIA

By John McFarland

As readers may know, I love graphs, and the Energy Information Administration is good at making them. Here are two particularly interesting ones.

China Energy Consumption.jpg

Iraqi production.jpg

Published on: September 26, 2012

Another Chapter in Jimmy McAllen’s Long-Running Case Against Forest Oil

By John McFarland

Last week, a Texas district court ruled that Jimmy McAllen could keep his $20 million arbitration award against Forest Oil Corp. This fight goes back to 1992, when Forest Oil gave McAllen used drilling pipe to build animal enclosures on his exotic wildlife ranch, on which McAllen kept rhinoceroses. The pipe had scale that contained radioactive materials, and McAllen claimed that it made the animals ill. McAllen also contracted cancer, which he blamed on the pipe. McAllen also alleged that Forest secretly buried mercury, drilling waste and other radioactive material on his property. McAllen sued Forest in 2005. Forest claimed that McAllen was required to arbitrate the dispute under the terms of a prior settlement agreement between Forest and McAllen arising out of a suit for unpaid royalties. Forest’s argument eventually made it to the Texas Supreme Court, which held that the prior settlement agreement was binding on McAllen and required him to arbitrate the dispute. Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2008).

The case then went to an arbitration panel consisting of Houston attorney Daryl Bristow and South Texas attorneys Clayton J. Hoover and Donato D. Ramos. On February 29, 2012, the panel issued a split decision, 2-1, awarding McAllen $21.9 million plus $5 million in attorneys’ fees and additional injunctive relief requiring Forest to post a $10 million bond for the life of the lease to assure cleanup of any pollution found on the ranch. In a 40-page dissent, Daryl Bristow said that the panel’s award “turn[ed] the law on its ear” and “fabricate[s] a damages number without any principled foundation in the record.”

Forest then filed suit to overturn the award. On September 19, Judge Jeff Shadwick, of the 55th District Court in Harris County, denied Forest’s motion to overturn the award. The court’s order said that “the panel reached its conclusions based on little to no admissible evidence,” but that this “is one of the unfortunate hazards of arbitration.” “The court is not at liberty to substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrators merely because it would have reached a different decision.” Judge Shadwick did overturn the arbitration panel’s requirement that Forest post a bond for future cleanup, saying that the panel had no jurisdiction to issue such relief.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 18, 2012

Congressmen Weigh In on Proposed BLM Rules on Hydraulic Fracturing

By John McFarland

This summer, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management issued proposed rules relating to disclosure of the content of frac fluids and handling of frac fluids used in wells drilled on puclic lands managed by the BLM. Last week a group of Congressmen led by Congressman Edward J. Markey, D. Mass., head of the House Natural Resources Committtee, have submitted an extensive letter commenting on the proposed rules.

The letter criticizes BLM’s rules for (1) not requiring disclosure of chemicals in frac fluids prior to drilling of a well rather than after the fact, (2) proposing to use FracFocus as the method for disclosure of frac fluids, (3) allowing flowback fluids to be stored in earthen pits, (4) not imposing requirements for proper well construction, cement and casing design and installation, and (5) not establishing minimum setbacks between wells and public buildings to minimize harm from air emissions during well completions.

As I have reported earlier, the Texas Railroad Commission recently published proposed rules tightening regulations on well construction and cementing, as well as more stringent regulation of disposal wells, to better protect against contamination of groundwater.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 12, 2012

5th Circuit Affirms $20 million Judgment Against Chesapeake

By John McFarland

The 5th Circuit affirmed a judgment today against Chesapeake Exploration for $19,951,004 in favor of Peak Energy Corporation, for breach of a contract to purchase oil and gas leases in the Haynesville Shale area of Harrison County, Texas. Coe v. Chesapeake Exploration, No. 11-41003. The Court’s summary of the case:

In July 2008 Chesapeake Exploration LLC entered into an agreement to purchase deep rights held by Peak Energy Corporation in certain oil and gas leases in the Haynesville Shale formation, for the hefty sum of $15,000 per acre. When the price of natural gas plummeted several months later, Chesapeake refused to honor its commitment. In response to the complaint filed by Peak it contended that the parties’ agreement was unenforceable under the Texas statute of frauds, fatally indefinite, and that the plaintiffs had failed to tender performance. The district court disagreed, rendering judgment in favor of Peak and its principals and awarding them damages in the amount of $19,951,004, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Finding no error, we affirm.

In 2008, gas prices were high and the boom was on in the Haynesville Shale. Chesapeake was buying all of the acreage it could find. Its brokers identified leases covering 5,405 acres in Harrison County, Texas owned by Peak Energy, and on July 2, Chesapeake sent Peak a letter offering to buy all rights in its leases below the base of the Cotton Valley formation for $15,000 per net acre, with Peak delivering a 75% net revenue interest and reserving an overriding royalty on any excess over 75%. A map generated by Chesapeake was attached to the letter agreement showing the tracts Chesapeake had identified in which Peak had leases. The letter said that it was a “valid and binding agreement,” and that the closing would occur on August 31. Peak signed and returned the letter.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 6, 2012

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Two Jury Verdicts for Landowners in Condemnation Cases

By John McFarland

The Texas Supreme Court issued two important condemnation cases on the last day of its term, both reversing judgments after jury trials in condemnation suits.

In City of Austin v. Harry M. Whittington, the court resolved the Whittington’s ten-year battle with the City over condemnation of a city block adjacent to the City’s convention center. The jury found that the City’s determination that its condemnation of the property was for a “public use” was fraudulent, in bad faith, and arbitrary and capricious. The Court said that “the Whittingtons do not dispute the underlying facts on these issues; rather, they dispute the legal effect of those facts (e.g., whether those facts amount to fraud, bad faith, or arbitrariness and capriciousness). Because these issues are legal questions, we review them de novo.” In other words, the Court held that it was not bound to support the jury’s verdict, but could look at the evidence and decide for itself. It decided that the evidence did not show that the City was guilty of fraud, bad faith, or arbitrary or capricious behavior. The City condemned the block for a private developer to build a parking garage for the convention center. Two Justices dissented. (My firm represented the Whittingtons in this case.)

In Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Avinger Timber, the jury awarded Avinger $20,955,000 for Enbridge’s condemnation of a site owned by Avinger on which a gas processing plant was located. The site was subject to a long-term lease that expired, and when the parties were unable to agree on terms for extension of the lease, Enbridge sued to condemn the property. The issue on appeal was whether the testimony of the valuation experts for Enbridge and Avinger was admissible. The Court held that both experts’ testimony was inadmissible and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. The Court held that the landowner’s appraiser violated the “value-to-the-taker” rule–meaning that he impermissibly took into account the unique value of the land to the condemning gas processing company (as opposed to considering the value to a hypothetical willing buyer, as the law requires). In particular, the appraiser had taken into account the cost to the company of removing the plant on the land if it were sold; the Court held that the appraiser should not have factored in those costs because that was a cost unique to the condemnor and not one that impacted the value of the land to a potential buyer.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 29, 2012

New Railroad Commission Rules

By John McFarland

The Texas Railroad Commission has been issuing new rules and proposed rules affecting oil and gas exploration activities that landowners should know about.

New Penalty Guidelines

The RRC proposed new rules earlier this year establishing guidelines for penalties for violations of RRC rules. This month, the RRC adopted those proposed rules. In the last Texas legislative session, the RRC was criticized by the Sunset Advisory Commission for not enforcing its rules more vigorously. The Sunset Commission said that the RRC’s current “voluntary compliance” policy contributes to “a public perception that the Commission is not willing to take strong enforcement action.” It said that operators must have a reasonable incentive, a realistic threat of penalties that are greater than the savings achieved by violating the rules. The Legislature did not act on the Sunset Commission’s recommendations, but postponed consideration of the RRC’s report until the next legislative session.

Continue reading →