Understanding Legal Issues Related to Marcellus Shale by Ross H. Pifer
-
Upload
juliagebhart -
Category
Education
-
view
1.662 -
download
7
description
Transcript of Understanding Legal Issues Related to Marcellus Shale by Ross H. Pifer
Understanding Legal IssuesRelated to Marcellus Shale
Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture
Marcellus Shale Choices: Information to Action Series
August 2011
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
2
History of the Agricultural Law Center
Established through enactment of the Established through enactment of the Agricultural Law Resource and Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center Act on January 29, Reference Center Act on January 29, 19981998 House Bill 1345 (Act 11 of 1998)House Bill 1345 (Act 11 of 1998) Codified at 3 Pa. Stat. 2201 to 2209Codified at 3 Pa. Stat. 2201 to 2209
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
3
Act 11 of 1998 Legislative Findings
““The legal issues affecting agriculture . . . The legal issues affecting agriculture . . . are becoming increasingly complex”are becoming increasingly complex”
““At present there exists no central and At present there exists no central and effective system for compiling agricultural effective system for compiling agricultural law materials . . . and disseminating this law materials . . . and disseminating this information to affected parties . . .”information to affected parties . . .”
““The alliance between [DSL and PSU The alliance between [DSL and PSU CAS] . . . creates a unique opportunity.”CAS] . . . creates a unique opportunity.”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
4
Purpose of Agricultural Law Center
Section 2205Section 2205 ““to serve as a resource on agricultural law to serve as a resource on agricultural law
and related issues for farmers and and related issues for farmers and agribusinesses, attorneys, officials at all agribusinesses, attorneys, officials at all levels of government, community groups, levels of government, community groups, and the public.”and the public.”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
5
Dissemination of Information
PresentationsPresentations Educational ProgramsEducational Programs PublicationsPublications The Agricultural Law BriefThe Agricultural Law Brief WebsiteWebsite BlogsBlogs
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
6
Web-based Resources
www.law.psu.edu/aglawwww.law.psu.edu/aglaw Resource AreasResource Areas
ACREACRE Right to FarmRight to Farm Clean and GreenClean and Green Agricultural Area Security LawAgricultural Area Security Law
Center Publications LibraryCenter Publications Library Agricultural Law BriefAgricultural Law Brief
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
7
Web-based Resources
www.law.psu.edu/marcelluswww.law.psu.edu/marcellus Marcellus Shale Resource AreaMarcellus Shale Resource Area
Penn State ResourcesPenn State Resources Case LawCase Law StatutesStatutes RegulationsRegulations Legal-related linksLegal-related links
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
8
Blogs
Agricultural LawAgricultural Law www.pennstateaglaw.comwww.pennstateaglaw.com
Marcellus ShaleMarcellus Shale www.pennstatelawmarcellusblog.comwww.pennstatelawmarcellusblog.com
Chesapeake BayChesapeake Bay www.pennstatelawbayblog.comwww.pennstatelawbayblog.com
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
9
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
10
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas – The Early Years
August 27, 1859 – Drake well Nov. 3, 1878 – Haymaker well January 1883 – Natural gas
pipeline constructed to Pittsburgh
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas
Early 20th Century (1900-01)
43% of total value of natural gas extracted in United States
37% of active gas well in United States 42% of pipeline miles in United States
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
12
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas
Early 21st Century (2005)
16th nationally in annual natural gas production 3rd nationally in number of active natural gas
wells (11% of national total)
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
13
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Law
1859 to 2005 Late 1800s to Early 1900s – national leader Mid 1900s to Early 2000s – relatively small
development of oil and gas case law Early 2000s – statutory and regulatory
framework for oil and gas development based upon historic production methods
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
14
Marcellus Shale Development
Renz #1 (2005) – Marked Beginning of Transformation of Industry in PA Increased activity Expansion into new areas of PA Use of new techniques / technologies $$$$$$$$ Entry of international companies
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
15
What is Marcellus Shale?
Natural gas contained with shale rock Extremely large shale formation Extraction relies upon adaptation of two
key technologies: Hydraulic fracturing Horizontal drilling
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
16
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
17
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
Source: PickensPlan.com 18
Why Marcellus Shale?
Large size – 95,000 square miles Productivity Low break-even market price Proximity to market
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
19
Marcellus Wells Drilled Pennsylvania Marcellus wells
2005 – 2 2006 – 11 2007 – 34 2008 – 210 2009 – 768 2010 – 1454
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
20
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
21
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
22
Marcellus Production Data
23
Marcellus – acreage locations
NY
PA
WV
Legend
APC / MitsuiAtlasCOGCHKChief / EnerplusCNX / CXG
East Resources
EnerVestEOGEpsilonEQTEXCOHess / NFXNFG (Seneca)PDCRangeRex / WilliamsSamsonStoneSWNTLMUPLXOM / XTO
NJ
OH
MDDE
Columbia
DauphinPerry
Huntingdon
Forest
Northumberland
Jefferson
Warren
Cameron
Bedford
Wayne
Lackawanna
Susquehanna
Pike
Potter
Allegheny
Washington
Fayette
Lebanon
LycomingClearfield
Somerset
Westmoreland
Elk
Tioga
Armstrong
Centre
Clinton
Garrett
Monongalia
McKean
Bradford
Tioga
Indiana
Sullivan
Mercer
ButlerLawrence
Greene
Wetzel
Marshall
Doddridge
DC
Adams
BerksBucks
Carbon
Clarion
Crawford
MifflinBeaver
Chester
Cumberland
Erie
Fulton
Lehigh
Luzerne
Montour
Philadelphia
Snyder
Cambria
DelawareFranklin Lancaster
Monroe
Schuylkill
Wyoming
Montgomery
Northampton
Venango
York
Juniata
Union
Chemung
Steuben
Brooke
Hancock
Harrison
Marion
Ohio
PrestonTyler
Erie
Taylor
Berkeley
Grant
Hampshire
Hardy
Jefferson
Lewis
Mineral
Morgan
Pleasants
RitchieTucker
Wirt
Wood
Barbour
Allegany
BroomeCattaraugus
Chautauqua
Chenango
Cortland
Delaware
Erie Livingston Otsego
Schoharie
Schuyler
Sullivan
Tompkins
Ulster
Wyoming Yates
Blair
Carbon
Fulton
Luzerne
MonroeMontour
SchuylkillSnyder
Union
Source: Credit Suisse, company filings, company presentations and Wall Street research.
Antero
Carrizo
REXX Drilling
Range Res. (RRC)13 Rigs (6 spudder)IPs up to 26 MMcfe / d
EQT: 30-Day Rates15.8 MMcfe / d14.3 MMcfe / d
CXG: 30-Day Rates1.6 MMcfe / d0.8 MMcfe / d
CHK: 3 rigs
ATLSDrilled 17 HorizontalsIPs: 3 - 10 MMcfe/d170+ VerticalsAvg IP: 2.2 MMcfe/d
REXX DrillingRecent well:3.3 MMcfe/d (14-day)
XCO Drilling
EOG / NFG JV:2 rigs running
NFG Drilling
UPL: 2 rigs runningIPs Avg: 7.5 MMcf / dRange: 3-4-10.4 MMcf / d
TLM: 6 rigs runningIPs: 2.3-6.0 MMcfe / d (30-day)
NFG (Seneca)3 IPs: 5–10 MMcf / d7 wells drilled
APC:3 rigs running
RRC: 2 wells13.5 MMcfe / d (7-day)
SWN Drilling
CHK: 14 rigs
Epsilon (EPS)CHK Farm-out
CHK: 8.7 MMcfe / dCHK: 8.7 MMcfe / dCHK: 8.7 MMcfe / d
COG: 5 rigs runningRecent IPs: 2.6-16.1 MMcf / d
CRZO vert activity
ECA
24
Change in State Sales Tax Collections, by County Level
Marcellus Drilling Activity
July, 2007- June, 2010
Source: PA Department of Revenue ‘Statistical Supplements for the Tax Compendium
Counties by Number of Marcellus Wells Between 2007 and December, 2010
Sales tax dollars go to the state - none remains at the local level (except in a few urban counties)
Counties with more than 150 wells since 2007 include:
• Bradford (482 wells)• Tioga (387 wells)• Washington (305 wells)• Greene (179 wells)• Susquehanna (174 wells)
25
Change in Rights, Royalties & Patents- State Personal Income Tax Collections, by County Level Marcellus Drilling Activity, 2007-08
Source: PA Department of Revenue ‘Statistical Supplements for the Tax Compendium, Tim Kelsey - PSU
Counties by Number of Marcellus Wells Between 2007 and 2008
26
Negative Impacts from
Marcellus Activity
Strain on local infrastructure Increased demand on local services Increased housing costs Perceived decline in quality of life Environmental concerns
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
27
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
28
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Laws 58 Pa. Stat. §§ 1-701.7
Chapter 1: Oil and Gas Wells Chapter 2: Test of Illuminating Oil Chapter 5: Interstate Conservation Compact Chapter 7: Oil and Gas Conservation Law Chapter 8: Underground Storage Act Chapter 9: Pennsylvania Used Oil Recycling Act Chapter 10: Coal and Gas Resource Coordination Act
Chapter 11: Oil and Gas Act Chapter 12: Dormant Oil and Gas Act
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
29
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act
Organization of Oil and Gas Act Chapter 1: Preliminary Provisions Chapter 2: General Requirements Chapter 3: Underground Gas Storage Chapter 4: Eminent Domain Chapter 5: Enforcement and Remedies Chapter 6: Miscellaneous Provisions
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
30
OGA – Preliminary Provisions
Declaration of Purpose – Section 102 Permit optimal development . . . consistent with
protection of health, safety, environment, and property;
Protect safety of employees and facilities; Protect safety and property of those near
development; and Protect natural resources, environmental rights
and values secured by PA Constitution
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
31
OGA – General Requirements
Section 201 – Well permits Section 202 – Permit objections Section 203 – Well registration and identification Section 205 – Well location restrictions Section 206 – Well site restoration Section 207 – Casing requirements Section 208 – Protection of water supplies Section 210 – Plugging requirements Section 212 – Well reporting requirements Section 215 – Bonding
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
32
General Requirements
Permitting Requirements – Section 201 DEP permit is required prior to drilling. Notice must be provided to:
Surface owner; Surface landowner or water purveyors who have
water supply within 1000 feet of proposed well location; and
Owner / operator of underlying coal seams.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
33
General Requirements
Permitting Objections – Section 202 Surface owner has right to object to
permit. Objection must be filed with DEP within 15
days of receipt of notice and plat. Objection can be based upon improper
location of well or inaccurate information in permit application.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
34
General Requirements
Well Location Restrictions – Section 205 Wells cannot be drilled:
Within 200 feet from building or water well Within 100 feet from spring, stream, body or water, or
wetland larger than one acre
Waiver from location restrictions can be granted. DEP may impose conditions to protect people, property,
and waters.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
35
General Requirements
Well Site Restoration – Section 206 Surface estate must be restored from disturbances
caused by drilling activities. Well operator must follow erosion and sediment
control plan at all times during drilling. Equipment must be removed and well site restored
within nine months of completion of activity. Time period can be extended for six months. Equipment can be stored on-site with landowner
permission.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
36
General Requirements
Ground Water Protection – Section 207 Casing is required when:
Drilling through fresh water strata; Certain coal seams;
Brines must be disposed of in compliance with Clean Streams Law.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
37
General Requirements
Protection of Water Supplies – Section 208 Well operator must restore or replace a water
supply that is polluted or diminished. Presumption of liability
Well is presumed to have caused pollution of water supply located within 1000 feet of well.
Presumption can be rebutted by demonstrating pollution existed prior to drilling.
Presumption also is rebutted if landowner refuses permission to perform a predrill test.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
38
General Requirements
Reporting Requirements – Section 212 Completion report must be filed with 30 days
of the completion of drilling. Production Reports:
Report containing production data must be filed with DEP every six months.
Report is published on DEP Web site.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
39
Oil and Gas Conservation Law
Declaration of Purpose “[F]oster, encourage, and promote the
development, production, and utilization” of Pennsylvania’s oil and gas resources;
Prevent the waste of oil and natural gas; Permit the Commonwealth to “realize and enjoy
the maximum benefit of these natural resources.”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
40
Oil and Gas Conservation Law
Image by: Robert Milici and Christopher Swezey, 2006, Assessment of Appalachian Basin Oil and Gas Resources: Devonian Shale–Middle and Upper Paleozoic Total Petroleum System. Open-File Report Series 2006-1237. United States Geological Survey.
The Oil and Gas Conservation Law does not apply to wells that do not penetrate the Onondaga horizon, meaning wells drilled into the Marcellus Shale generally are not covered by this law.Depth of Marcellus
ShaleDepth of Ondaga Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
41
Oil and Gas Conservation Law
Well Spacing When a well is drilled into, or below, the
Onondaga horizon, those “directly and immediately affected by the drilling” of the well can apply to DEP for a well spacing order.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
42
Dormant Oil and Gas Act
Enacted July 11, 2006 Purpose
“facilitate the development of subsurface properties by reducing the problems caused by fragmented and unknown or unlocatable ownership of oil and gas interests . . .”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
43
Guarantee of Minimum Royalties
58 Pa. Stat. § 33 “A lease . . . shall not be valid if such lease does
not guarantee the lessor” a one-eighth royalty.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
44
State Regulatory Agencies
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Bureau of Oil and Gas Management
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR)
Public Utility Commission (PUC) Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Department of Agriculture (PDA)
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
45
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC)
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
46
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
47
The Leasing Process
Energy company presents landowner with STANDARD lease agreement.
Landowner negotiates additional terms to be included as addenda to lease agreement.
Lease agreement will govern nearly all aspects of relationship between landowner and energy company.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
48
Terms of the Lease Agreement
Parties to lease agreement Property description Length of lease agreement Payment terms Rights granted by landowner to energy
company & limitations on those rights
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
49
Parties to the Lease Agreement
Lessor – Owner of natural gas rights
Lessee Lessee could be an independent landman, an
energy company, a drilling company, or other. Lessee will change if lease agreement is later
assigned.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
50
Property Description
Property will be described by one or more of the following: County and township Metes and bounds Acreage Tax assessment parcel number Neighboring properties
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
51
Length of the Lease Agreement
Primary term Primary term is the number of years
defined in lease agreement. Lease agreement ends if production
activities do not begin by expiration of primary term.
If production activities begin, lease agreement is converted to secondary term.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
52
Extension of the Primary Term
Renewal at option of lessee Terms of current lease agreement will
continue.
Right of first refusal Lessee has opportunity to match contract
offers from other companies.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
53
Length of the Lease Agreement
Secondary term Secondary term begins upon the initiation
of production activities. Subject to the specific provisions in lease
agreement, secondary term can extend far into the future.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
54
Payment Terms
Bonus Payment This is a one-time payment to landowner. It is paid at execution of lease agreement
or within a short time thereafter. The amount is negotiable.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
55
Delay Rental Payments These are payments to landowner at times
specified in lease agreement. The obligation to make scheduled
payments terminates when a well is drilled. The amount and number of payments is
negotiable.
Payment Terms
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
56
Payment Terms
Royalty Payments These are paid to landowner when natural
gas is removed from the land. Pennsylvania law requires that landowner
be paid royalties of at least 1/8. Landowner can negotiate for a higher
royalty rate.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
57
Payment Terms
Shut-In Royalty Payments These are payments made to landowner
when a well is drilled, but gas is not yet marketed.
The amount and circumstances under which payments are made is negotiable.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
58
Payment Terms
Free Natural Gas Lease agreement may provide for landowner to
receive a specified amount of extracted natural gas at no cost.
Landowner is generally responsible for transportation of gas from wellhead to residence.
Landowner can negotiate to receive a payment in lieu of free natural gas.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
59
Other Payment Opportunities
Storage rights Transportation of foreign gas / installation of
pipelines Well siting fee
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
60
Mineral Estate
Surface Estate
Rights Granted by Landowner
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
61
Mineral estate is severable from surface estate.
Mineral estate is dominant over surface estate.
Mineral Estate vs. Surface Estate
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
62
Lease agreement will specify what products within mineral estate are subject to grant. Horizontal severance clause can limit gas
development to a specific strata (Marcellus, Utica, etc.)
Mineral Estate
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
63
Energy company will seek broad use of surface estate.
Landowner may want to limit energy company’s use of surface estate.
Surface Estate
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
64
Landowner may limit use of surface estate by: Requiring that landowner approve well sites and
access roads Specifying the conditions under which the land will
be reclaimed Defining the permitted activities and structures Requiring the installation of fencing or gates
Surface Estate Limitations
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
65
Landowner may be able to negotiate lease agreement that does not permit use of surface estate.
Landowner may or may not receive lower payment terms in exchange for a no surface rights lease.
No Surface Rights Lease
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
66
Examples: Property damages Liability to third parties Increased taxes, penalties, or damages
from violation of farmland preservation-type programs
Protection Against Adverse Financial Events
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
67
Landowners should seek protection through: Lease terms Insurance coverage Establishment of financial reserve
Protection Against Adverse Financial Events
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
68
Lease agreement should address potential damage to: soils, crops, trees, buildings, roads, water, etc.
Lease agreement should provide method of valuing damages.
Landowner should consider inclusion of arbitration clause.
Property Damage Provisions
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
69
Indemnification Provisions
Landowner should require indemnity provision in lease agreement.
Indemnity provision should include all costs of litigation.
Indemnity provision should encompass environmental harms.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
70
Participation in Clean and Green or other farmland preservation program may limit drilling activities or result in imposition of penalties.
Landowner should seek to shift all potential financial liabilities to lessee.
Farmland Preservation Provisions
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
71
Landowner should avoid granting storage rights in lease agreement.
The grant of storage rights can effectively extend the lease term.
The grant of storage rights should be separately negotiated for additional compensation.
Storage Rights
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
72
Landowner should avoid granting transportation rights (installation of pipelines) in lease agreement.
The grant of transportation rights should be separately negotiated for additional compensation.
Transportation of Foreign Gas
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
73
Landowner should inquire about attorney’s experience with gas leasing.
Landowner should understand the basis of all fees charged by attorney.
Landowner should receive a written fee agreement from attorney.
Considerations in Hiring an Attorney
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
74
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
75
Dunham’s Rule Reservation of mineral estate may not
include reservation of right to natural gas.
Ownership of Mineral Estate
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
76
“Held By Production”
When a well is commenced during the primary term, the leasehold is said to be “held by production.”
So long as a leasehold is held by production, the energy company holds all rights granted through the lease agreement.
Thus, the landowner will be limited or prevented from acquiring additional lease bonus payments.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
77
Pooling / Unitization
Pooling – “combining . . . tracts for the purpose of sharing production and expenses.”
Unitization – “consolidating multiple tracts and interests into a single unified block to allow for orderly development and efficient operations to prevent surface, underground, and economic waste.”
John S. Lowe et al., John S. Lowe et al., Cases and Materials on Oil and Gas Cases and Materials on Oil and Gas LawLaw
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
78
Pooling / Unitization
Royalties are paid on a proportional basis within drilling unit.
Example: If drilling unit is 640 acres; and landowner owns 64 acres within drilling unit; and landowner’s lease agreement provides for a royalty
rate of 15%; Then landowner will receive royalty of 1.5% of gas
extracted. The composition of a drilling unit is determined
by the energy company pursuant to lease agreement.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
79
Pooling / Unitization
Where only a portion of a leasehold is included in a drilling unit, generally all of the leasehold will be held by production.
A Pugh Clause in the lease agreement can provide for the release of portions of the leasehold that are not included within a drilling unit. Pugh Clause can release land vertically or horizontally.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
80
Rule of Capture
““The owner of a tract of land acquires title to The owner of a tract of land acquires title to the oil and gas which he produces from wells the oil and gas which he produces from wells drilled thereon, though it may be proved that drilled thereon, though it may be proved that part of such oil and gas migrated from part of such oil and gas migrated from adjoining lands.”adjoining lands.” Robert E. Hardwicke (1935)Robert E. Hardwicke (1935)
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
81
Rule of Capture is generally applicable in Pennsylvania.
The impact of the Rule of Capture may be minimized by lack of porosity and permeability in Marcellus Shale.
Rule of Capture
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
82
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
83
Natural gas extraction necessarily involves some disturbance of the surface estate.
Marcellus wells vs. traditional wells Larger well pad sites
Increased use of water Multiple wells on single well pad
Fewer well pad sites Use of horizontal drilling Surface use not necessary on all parcels.
Surface Impacts Generally
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
84
Mineral estate is severable from surface estate.
Mineral estate is dominant over surface estate. Owner of surface estate is entitled to certain
notifications Owner of mineral estate is entitled to reasonable
use of surface estate.
Mineral Estate vs. Surface Estate
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
85
Gas company must send permit application to owner of surface estate.
Surface owner has 15 days after receipt of application to object to grant of permit.
Objection can be based upon: Location of the well; or Inaccurate information contained in the permit
application.
Notification Requirement
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
86
Surface owner must receive notice of request for drilling permit renewal.
Surface owner must be provided with 24 hours notice prior to commencement of drilling.
Notification Requirement
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
87
Surface Owner Rights
Belden & Blake v. DCNR (Pa. Apr. 29, 2009) Facts:
Belden had rights to extract oil and gas within Oil Creek State Park.
DCNR would not permit surface access without coordination agreement.
Belden filed suit, claiming implied easement to use surface estate.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
88
Surface Owner Rights
Supreme Court Ruling: DCNR could not require Belden to execute
coordination agreement.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
89
Surface Owner Rights
Supreme Court Reasoning: Subsurface estate is dominant over surface estate.
Chartiers Block Coal Co. v. Mellon (Pa. 1893) Subsurface owner entitled to reasonable use of surface
estate. Burden is on surface owner to challenge reasonableness
of use. Government holds no greater rights than private
landowner re: surface use.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
90
What is reasonable use? How does the ability to horizontally drill affect
reasonable use?
How can surface owner enforce reasonable use? Surface use agreement Litigation – Burden is on surface owner to initiate
court proceeding.
Mineral Estate vs. Surface Estate
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
91
Compensation for Damages to Surface Estate
Obligation of natural gas rights holder to compensate surface owner for damages is not clear. There are no statutory provisions addressing
this topic.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
92
Damages for Devaluation of Surface Estate
Gates v. Exco Resources, 2010 WL 1416740 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2010)
Landowners executed lease agreement and pipeline rights of way.
Landowners sought damages for devaluation of property due to improper reclamation after installation of pipelines.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
93
Gates v. Exco Resources
Court opinion Court found that 20 acres was “rendered
almost unable to be used again.” Court awarded $16,000 in damages due to
diminution of property value. Court did not rely on contract as basis for
recovery. Court awarded damages despite evidence that
devalued land was typical of gas production activities.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
94
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments
Case Law Municipal Regulation Statutory Enactments
Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
95
Validity and Duration of Lease Agreement
Minimum Royalty Act litigationMinimum Royalty Act litigation Fraudulent InducementFraudulent Inducement Untimely Tender of Lease PaymentUntimely Tender of Lease Payment Failure to Obtain Management Approval of LeaseFailure to Obtain Management Approval of Lease Enforcement of Arbitration ClausesEnforcement of Arbitration Clauses Expiration of Primary TermExpiration of Primary Term Expiration of Secondary Term – “Produced in Paying Expiration of Secondary Term – “Produced in Paying
Quantities”Quantities”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
96
Minimum Royalty Act Litigation
Hundreds, possibly thousands, of Hundreds, possibly thousands, of landowners sought to terminate their lease landowners sought to terminate their lease agreements in suits before state and federal agreements in suits before state and federal courts.courts.
General Issue: Did reduction of royalty to pay General Issue: Did reduction of royalty to pay for post-production costs violate for post-production costs violate Pennsylvania minimum royalty statute?Pennsylvania minimum royalty statute?
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
97
58 P.S. § 33 – Guarantee of Minimum Royalties
A lease or other such agreement conveying the right to remove or recover oil, natural gas or gas of any other designation from lessor to lessee shall not be valid if such lease does not guarantee the lessor at least one-eighth royalty of all oil, natural gas or gas of other designations removed or recovered from the subject real property.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
98
Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services
Susquehanna Co. Court of Common PleasSusquehanna Co. Court of Common Pleas March 3, 2009 – Order ruled in favor of gas March 3, 2009 – Order ruled in favor of gas
company.company. March 16, 2009 – Opinion issued.March 16, 2009 – Opinion issued.
On June 16, 2009, Supreme Court granted On June 16, 2009, Supreme Court granted Petition for Extraordinary Relief.Petition for Extraordinary Relief.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
99
Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services
Issue accepted by Supreme CourtIssue accepted by Supreme Court ““Whether 58 P.S. Whether 58 P.S. § 33 precludes parties § 33 precludes parties
from contracting that post-production from contracting that post-production costs be factored into the determination of costs be factored into the determination of the amount of royalty payable under an oil the amount of royalty payable under an oil or natural gas lease.”or natural gas lease.”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
100
Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services
Supreme Court opinion issued on Supreme Court opinion issued on March 24, 2010March 24, 2010 GMRA “should be read to permit the GMRA “should be read to permit the
calculation of royalties at the wellhead, as calculation of royalties at the wellhead, as provided by the net-back method used in provided by the net-back method used in the lease.”the lease.”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
101
Fraudulent Inducement
Kropa v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 2010 WL 2346587 (M.D. Pa. June 8, 2010). Facts:
Susquehanna County landowner paid $25 per acre lease bonus.
Allegation that landman stated that Cabot would never pay more than $25 per acre.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
102
Kropa v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.
Cabot filed motion to dismiss claim Argued that parol evidence rule precluded
consideration of evidence outside terms of contract
Court denied motion to dismiss Parol evidence rule only applies to valid
contract. Evidence of fraud permitted to contest contract
validity.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
103
Untimely Tender of Lease Bonus
Sylvester v. Southwestern Energy Production, 2009 WL 3633835 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 2, 2009).
Facts: December 2007 – ten-year lease agreement executed Payment to be made within sixty days of lease
agreement. Payment received by landowners twenty-three days
after deadline. Landowners returned check to gas company.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
104
Sylvester v. Southwestern Energy
Landowners sought declaration that lease was unenforceable.
Court granted gas company’s motion to dismiss.
Delay did not constitute material breach.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
105
Sylvester v. Southwestern Energy
No material breach: Landowners could receive benefit of bargain. Ninety days notice of default was to be
provided. No provision stating that time was of the
essence.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
106
Breach of Contract – Failure to Accept Lease
Hollingsworth v. Range Resources, 2009 WL 3601586 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2009).
Facts: June – Hollingsworth received Dear Property
Owner letter “offering” lease bonus of $2,500 per acre.
August – Hollingsworth signs lease and returns to Range.
December – Range returns lease to Hollingsworth stamped ‘void.’
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
107
Hollingsworth v. Range Resources
Contract did not exist. Dear Property Owner letter did not
constitute an offer. Range did not sign lease agreement. By voiding and returning lease, Range was
rejecting Hollingsworth offer.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
108
Breach of Contract – Failure to Accept Lease
Lyco Better Homes v. Range Resources – Docket No. 4:09-cv-249 (M.D. Pa. May 21, 2009).
Pigeon Creek Presbyterian Church v. Range Resources – Appalachia, 2010 WL 256580 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2010).
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
109
Valentino v. Range Resources – Appalachia
Facts: Lease agreement and side agreement provided for
bonus payment of $456,800. Lease not valid until approved by management.
Court opinion Documents did not define management approval Breach of contract claim was facially plausible Motion to Dismiss denied
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
110
Enforcement of Arbitration Clauses
Eisenberger v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC – 2010 WL 457139 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2010).
Husband, but not wife, signed lease. Landowners sought to revoke lease. Landowners sought declaration that lease was
invalid. Chesapeake sought to compel arbitration.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
111
Eisenberger v. Chesapeake
Court ruling: Validity of lease agreement was at issue.
Distinct from GMRA claims
Since contract formation was in dispute, underlying claims would not be decided by arbitrator.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
112
Extension of Primary Term
Hite v. Falcon Partners, 13 A.3d 942 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 4, 2011).
“Lessee has the right to enter upon the Property to drill [for one year] . . . or as Lessee shall continue to pay Lessors two dollars per acre as delayed rentals.”
Lessors sought to terminate leases. Court affirmed grant of summary judgment to Lessors.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
113
Extension of Primary Term
Lauchle v. The Keeton Group, LLC, 2010 WL 78924 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2011).
Court declined to extend primary term of leases due to lease termination litigation asserted by landowners.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
114
Expiration of Secondary Term
T.W. Phillips v. Jedlicka, 964 A.2d 13 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 29, 2008).
Facts: Lease was executed in 1928. Lease extended so long as “oil or gas is produced in
paying quantities.” Wells were drilled in 1929, 1986, 2004, and 2005. Jedlicka argued that lease terminated in 1959 because
lease was not profitable in that year.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
115
T.W. Phillips v. Jedlicka
Superior Court opinion Court relied upon Young v. Forest Oil Co. (Pa.
1899) to apply subjective test. Court ruled that Jedlicka had failed to carry
burden of establishing lack of good faith.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
116
T.W. Phillips v. Jedlicka
Issue before Supreme Court: Did the Superior Court misapply [Young v.
Forest Oil] by holding that Pennsylvania employs a purely subjective test to determine whether an oil or gas lease has produced “in paying quantities.”
Argument held on April 13, 2010.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
117
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments
Case Law Municipal Regulation Statutory Enactments
Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
118
Oil and Gas Act § 602
““Except with respect to ordinances adopted Except with respect to ordinances adopted pursuant to the . . . Municipalities Planning Code, pursuant to the . . . Municipalities Planning Code, and the . . . Flood Plain Management Act, all local and the . . . Flood Plain Management Act, all local ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate oil and gas well operations regulated by this act are oil and gas well operations regulated by this act are hereby superseded.hereby superseded. No ordinances or enactments No ordinances or enactments adopted pursuant to the aforementioned acts shall adopted pursuant to the aforementioned acts shall contain provisions which impose conditions, contain provisions which impose conditions, requirements or limitations on the same features of requirements or limitations on the same features of oil and gas well operations regulated by this act or oil and gas well operations regulated by this act or that accomplish the same purposes as set forth in that accomplish the same purposes as set forth in this act.” this act.”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
119
Oil and Gas Act § 602
““Except with respect to ordinances adopted Except with respect to ordinances adopted pursuant to the . . . Municipalities Planning Code, pursuant to the . . . Municipalities Planning Code, and the . . . Flood Plain Management Act, all local and the . . . Flood Plain Management Act, all local ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate ordinances and enactments purporting to regulate oil and gas well operations regulated by this act are oil and gas well operations regulated by this act are hereby superseded.hereby superseded. No ordinances or enactments No ordinances or enactments adopted pursuant to the aforementioned acts shall adopted pursuant to the aforementioned acts shall contain provisions which impose conditions, contain provisions which impose conditions, requirements or limitations on the same requirements or limitations on the same featuresfeatures of of oil and gas well operations regulated by this act or oil and gas well operations regulated by this act or that accomplish the same that accomplish the same purposespurposes as set forth in as set forth in this act.” this act.”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
120
Oil and Gas Act Preemption of Municipal Regulation
Huntley & Huntley v. Borough of Oakmont Zoning restriction was permitted in R-1 district. Example of permissible municipal regulation.
Range Resources v. Salem Township Comprehensive regulatory scheme was not permitted. Example of impermissible municipal regulation.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
121
Municipal Regulation
Penneco Oil Co. v. County of Fayette Commonwealth Court opinion
Issued on July 22, 2010
Facts: County zoning ordinance allowed wells only by special exception in residential, industrial, and airport zones.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
122
Penneco Oil Co. v. County of Fayette
Conditions for grant of special exception: Well not located in flight path Well not located within 200 feet of residence Well not located within 50 feet of property line
or right-of-way Fencing and shrubbery required Zoning Hearing Board may attach conditions to
protect public health, safety, and welfare Conditions may include increased setbacks
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
123
Penneco Oil Co. v. County of Fayette
Court opinion Ordinance was reflection of traditional zoning
principles rather than a comprehensive regulatory scheme.
Although there was some overlap with purposes of Oil and Gas Act, primary purpose of ordinance was to encourage compatible land use.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
124
Penneco Oil Co. v. County of Fayette
Application for reargument denied on September 14, 2010.Supreme Court appeal proceeding
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
125
Oil and Gas Act Preemption of Municipal Regulation
Range Resources – Appalachia v. Blaine Township
Attempted regulation of oil and gas operations through corporate disclosure ordinance.
Attempted regulation through other than MPC authority.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
126
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments
Case Law Municipal Regulation Statutory Enactments
Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
127
Enacted Legislation
2009-2010 Legislative Session2009-2010 Legislative Session Marcellus Shale Reporting Requirements (SB 297)Marcellus Shale Reporting Requirements (SB 297) Clean and Green Amendments (SB 298)Clean and Green Amendments (SB 298) Coal Bed Methane Review Board (HB 1847)Coal Bed Methane Review Board (HB 1847)
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
128
Reporting Requirements
Senate Bill 297 (Act. No. 15)Senate Bill 297 (Act. No. 15) Approved by Governor on March 22, 2010Approved by Governor on March 22, 2010 Marcellus production data must be Marcellus production data must be
reported to DEP every six months.reported to DEP every six months. DEP is required to publish production data DEP is required to publish production data
on website.on website.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
129
Clean and Green Background
Pennsylvania Farmland and Forest Land Pennsylvania Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act of 1974Assessment Act of 1974 Eligible land is assessed at use value rather than Eligible land is assessed at use value rather than
fair market value resulting in lower property fair market value resulting in lower property taxes.taxes.
Program is active in 55 of 67 counties.Program is active in 55 of 67 counties. Counties were treating impact of natural gas Counties were treating impact of natural gas
drilling differently.drilling differently.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
130
Clean and Green Amendment
Senate Bill 298 (Act. No. 88)Senate Bill 298 (Act. No. 88) Approved by Governor on October 27, 2010Approved by Governor on October 27, 2010 Leasing permitted on C&G land.Leasing permitted on C&G land. Development activities permitted on C&G land.Development activities permitted on C&G land. Roll-back taxes imposed on portion of C&G land.Roll-back taxes imposed on portion of C&G land.
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
131
Clean and Green Amendment
What lands are subject to roll-back tax?What lands are subject to roll-back tax? Restored well site, andRestored well site, and Land incapable of being immediately used for Land incapable of being immediately used for
agricultural use, ag reserve, or forest reserveagricultural use, ag reserve, or forest reserve Roll-back taxes due when county assessor Roll-back taxes due when county assessor
receives initial production report.receives initial production report. The result of 2011 legislative amendmentThe result of 2011 legislative amendment
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
132
Clean and Green Amendment
What lands are specifically excluded from roll-back What lands are specifically excluded from roll-back tax?tax? PipelinesPipelines Surface owners who do not own gas rightsSurface owners who do not own gas rights
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
133
Coal Bed Methane Review Board
House Bill 1847 (Act. No. 4)House Bill 1847 (Act. No. 4) Approved by Governor on February 1, 2010.Approved by Governor on February 1, 2010.
PurposePurpose ““To establish an alternative procedure to court To establish an alternative procedure to court
action for consideration and resolution of action for consideration and resolution of objections to the locations of certain coal bed objections to the locations of certain coal bed methane wells or roads. . .”methane wells or roads. . .”
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
134
Coal Bed Methane Review Board
Three member board appointed by GovernorThree member board appointed by Governor One member from list submitted by Farm BureauOne member from list submitted by Farm Bureau One member from list submitted by industry One member from list submitted by industry
associationsassociations One member with petroleum expertise from list One member with petroleum expertise from list
submitted by Penn State Deanssubmitted by Penn State Deans
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
135
Coal Bed Methane Review Board
General ProcedureGeneral Procedure NotificationNotification Filing of objectionsFiling of objections Conference convenedConference convened Attempt to reach resolutionAttempt to reach resolution Determination by BoardDetermination by Board Appeal to Court of Common PleasAppeal to Court of Common Pleas
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
136
Overview of Presentation Introduction Marcellus Shale Background Statutory and Regulatory Overview Leasing Issues General Oil and Gas Law Concepts Surface Owner Issues Recent Legal Developments
Case Law Municipal Regulation Statutory Enactments
Legal Issues on the Horizon
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
137
Current Legal Issues
Marcellus Shale Impact Fee (SB 1100) Compulsory pooling Local regulation of drilling operations Regulation of hydraulic fracturing Expiration of primary term
Agricultural Law Resource and Reference CenterProfessor Ross H. Pifer
138
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
Prof. Ross Pifer, Director
Phone: (814) 865-3723
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.law.psu.edu/aglaw
Other Resources:
www.law.psu.edu/marcellus
www.pennstatelawmarcellusblog.com139