Source: https://www.wsmtlaw.com/blog.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:19:25+00:00

Document:
Venezuela is reeling from a multitude of woes. Vast swathes of the population have fled to neighboring countries as a humanitarian crisis flares out of control. The Venezuelan oil industry – the economy’s frail linchpin – has not escaped the morass. PdVSA, the state-owned oil company, is crippled by chronic operating mismanagement and resource nationalism.
However, political pressure is mounting for the country’s corruption-smeared leader, Nicolás Maduro. Russo-Cuban good-will and a pseudo-loyal military provide only a slim reed for him to lean on. Furthermore, Juan Guiadó – the constitutionally recognized interim president – has galvanized popular support for a democratic re-boot in Venezuela.
Although the Obama and Trump administrations differ markedly on climate change and energy policy, their oil and gas decisions are being similarly faulted by federal courts. President Obama had an “all of the above” energy policy that included the development of oil and gas but took addressing climate change as a serious obligation. President Trump has by executive order (EO 13783), agency policies (Secretarial Order 3360) and rulemakings rejected Obama climate change policies to support an “energy dominance” energy policy.
In March 2019, two federal courts considered two different phases of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) oil and gas process—leasing and development—and found BLM’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis faulty for failing to adequately consider greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts. WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke (D.D.C., March 13, 2019) (WEG) and Citizens for a Healthy Community v. BLM (D. Colo., March 27, 2019) (Citizens). Oil and gas lease holders in Wyoming and an oil and gas development in Colorado have been stymied as the courts direct BLM to improve its analysis of climate change impacts. The WEG court refused to vacate the leases, but on remand directed BLM to complete a new analysis before allowing development on existing leases or any new leasing. Although the industry has asked the administration to appeal the WEG decision, the administration’s next move is not clear. The Citizens court has asked for additional briefing on a remedy.
On January 14, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court reached a decision in COGCC v. Martinez, ending more than five years of litigation between seven youth activists from Boulder-based Earth Guardians and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”). The Court held that the COGCC appropriately exercised its agency discretion when it declined to undertake a rulemaking that would have conditioned approval of applications for oil and gas drilling permits on a conditional finding of no adverse impacts to health, safety, or the environment.
The facts of the highly publicized case are well known. In 2013, Earth Guardians petitioned the COGCC to promulgate a rule requiring that COGCC withhold issuance of any new drilling permits “unless the best available science demonstrates, and an independent, third party organization confirms, that drilling can occur in a manner that does not cumulatively, with other actions, impair Colorado’s atmosphere, water, wildlife, and land resources, does not adversely impact human health, and does not contribute to climate change.” COGCC declined to undertake the proposed rule-making, finding, inter alia, that the proposed rule was beyond COGCC’s limited statutory scope. The petitioners appealed to district court, which affirmed COGCC’s denial of the petition.
Effective November 27, 2018, the revised Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulations pertaining to waste prevention will take effect. 83 Fed. Reg. 49,184 (Sept. 28, 2018). This final rulemaking eliminates several of the more onerous burdens imposed by the regulations adopted at the end of the previous Administration. 82 Fed. Reg. 83,008 (Nov. 18, 2016) (the “2016 Rule”). The 2016 Rule (sometimes called the methane rule) was officially effective as of January 17, 2017, although many of its provisions called for delayed implementation. The 2016 Rule has been the subject of conflicting rulings from the federal courts in the District of Wyoming (now in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals) and the Northern District of California (and briefly in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). Although the adoption of the new final rule would appear to moot that litigation, the States of California and New Mexico, followed by Sierra Club and a number of other non-governmental organizations, filed new lawsuits challenging the 2018 final rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. State of California, et al. v. Zinke, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-05712-YGR (filed Sept. 18, 2018); Sierra Club, et al. v. Zinke, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-05984-SBA (filed Sept. 28, 2018). Western Energy Alliance and Independent Petroleum Association of America have moved to intervene in the State of California case. This post describes the terms of the 2018 rule that will take effect November 27, 2018, barring an injunction or order vacating the 2018 rule from the federal court in California.
The 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger established the Reservation, originally for the Eastern Shoshone Tribe.2 The Northern Arapaho Tribe joined the Reservation in 1878. The Reservation’s boundaries changed frequently throughout the first decades of its existence. In 1874, the southern boundary was changed when the Eastern Shoshone Tribe sold all of its land south of the forty-third parallel in the “Lander Purchase.”3 The Reservation’s boundaries changed again in 1897 with the “Thermopolis Purchase,” affecting the northern boundary. In 1904, the Tribes and the federal government entered into an agreement to open up largely unclaimed land north of the Wind River for sale to non-Indians under the Homestead Act.4 This agreement was enacted by Congress in 1905, but an unanswered question simmered under the surface for over one hundred years – did the 1905 agreement reduce the size of the Reservation?
The Supreme Court’s Pen Strikes Down Quill-Now What???
On June 21, 2018, in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court struck down over fifty years of precedent when it ruled that retailers are no longer required to have a physical presence in a state to be subject to the state’s tax jurisdiction for sales tax purposes. Importantly, the question before the Court was never whether South Dakota has the authority to tax the sales of goods and services delivered to consumers within its borders, as there is no doubt that such transactions are subject to South Dakota sales and use tax. Rather, the question was: who bears the tax compliance responsibility – the retailer or the consumer?
One of President Trump’s first actions was to issue Executive Order 13766, “Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects” (Jan. 24, 2017), directing the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) to begin efforts to identify high priority infrastructure projects and expedite federal environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). This was followed by the more detailed EO 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects” (Aug. 15, 2017) describing the “One Federal Decision” (“OFD”) policy. The CEQ, the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) and the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) have taken several actions to implement this presidential OFD direction.
The challenge the EO is trying to address is the integration and timely coordination of the multiple federal agencies, federal laws and permit decisions that are triggered by a major infrastructure project. Expediting NEPA is not new; Congress and prior administrations have addressed the need for permit streamlining for at least the last 15 years. For example, in 2001, President George W. Bush created a NEPA Task Force to modernize agency regulations implementing NEPA. In 2004, BLM issued a “cooperating agency” rule directing that BLM invite state, local and tribal governments to participate as cooperating agencies in the Bureau’s NEPA processes. In 2003, as part of the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative, bi-partisan legislation, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, was enacted to expedite NEPA and court review of hazardous fuels reduction projects. Congress also created expedited NEPA for airports (Vision 100 Act of 2003), for highway and transit construction (SAFETEA-LU Act of 2005), and for oil and gas and LNG terminals (Energy Policy Act of 2005).
One of the arguments against fracking, and the natural gas industry in general, is that burning gas releases carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming.i What if burning natural gas resulted in no CO2 emissions? In the next three to five years that may be true.
MIT Technology Review has identified “zero carbon natural gas” as one of ten breakthrough technologies for 2018. NET Power, LLC is currently testing the concept with a 50-megawatt demonstration power plant in LaPorte, Texas. “The plant puts the carbon dioxide released from burning natural gas under high pressure and heat, using the resulting supercritical CO2 as the ‘working fluid’ that drives a specially built turbine. Much of the carbon dioxide can be continuously recycled; the rest can be captured cheaply.”ii NET Power plans to sell or use the remaining CO2 for enhanced oil recovery and manufacturing cement and plastics. 8 Rivers Capital invented and is advancing the Allam Cycle technology behind the project.
The number of elderly people continues to rise across the nation. In fact, it is projected that approximately 1 in 5 Coloradans will be 65 years of age or older by the year 2030. Unfortunately, with the rise in the number of elderly people, the frequency of elder abuse is also on the rise, particularly for widows. Additionally, a recent report prepared by the state’s Strategic Action Planning Group indicated that Colorado citizens do not believe that the needs of seniors are a top priority for elected officials.
In response to the rise in elder abuse, legislation was passed a few years ago to require certain people to be held accountable to report elder abuse to law enforcement. C.R.S. § 18-6.5-108. Under Colorado law, these people are defined as mandatory reporters and are required to file a report with law enforcement if they witness or become aware of the fact that an at-risk elder, defined as any person 70 years of age or older, has been or is at imminent risk for abuse, caretaker neglect or exploitation. Exploitation is defined as the taking of an at-risk elder’s money or other assets against their will or without their knowledge. The report must be filed within 24 hours of observing or discovering the abuse, caretaker neglect or exploitation. Willful failure by a mandatory reporter to make a report is a class 3 Misdemeanor. Conviction can result in a fine of up to $750.00, a jail sentence of up to 6 months, or both.
What Changes Does the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” Make to Estate Planning?
There are a variety of tax law changes as a result of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (the “Act”). However, the following is a brief summary of the specific changes that will impact estate planning issues.
Although only approximately 0.2% of the population was subject to the federal estate tax prior to the Act, now the estate tax will apply to even fewer people. If you died in 2017, you could leave up to $5,490,000.00 estate tax free as a single person and $10,980,000.00 as a married couple. The Act changed the amount to $11,200,000.00 for a single person and $22,400,000.00 for a married couple. In addition to amounts that you can leave on death, these figures also apply to gift tax exemptions as well as generation-skipping transfer tax exemptions. The amounts will be adjusted for inflation in 2018 through 2025. However, on January 1, 2026, the amounts are scheduled to revert to the 2017 amounts adjusted for inflation. The top estate tax rate will remain at 40% and the tax rate for generation-skipping transfers will remain at a flat rate of 40%.
A recent decision of the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) vividly makes the point that the Department of the Interior considers accurate royalty reporting to be equally if not more important than payment of the proper amounts. In Quinex Energy Corp., 192 IBLA 88 (2017), the operator underpaid royalties on several tribal and allotted leases covering lands on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah in the amount of $120,242 because it used “erroneous gas prices.” The decision does not explain the reason for the erroneous prices but apparently the underpaid amount was promptly paid upon receipt of the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) order to report and pay sent to Quinex. However, it took Quinex between 8 and 22 months to correct the royalty reports on the ONRR-2014 forms that it had filed relating to the royalty underpayments. The ONRR sent civil penalty notices to Quinex assessing penalties in the aggregate amount of $3,217,250 - more than 26 times the amount of the underpaid royalty! The penalty was assessed based on $25 per day for 229 reporting violations (one for each inaccurate line on the 2014 form) that continued for between 8 and 22 months.
The ONRR has statutory authority to assess civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day per violation for knowingly or willfully preparing, maintaining or submitting false, inaccurate, or misleading royalty reports. 30 U.S.C. § 1719(d). Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, that $25,000 statutory maximum is now $59,834 (30 C.F.R. § 1241.60(b)(2)). At the time of the events involved in the Quinex case, $25,000 was the maximum penalty, which ONRR reduced, in its discretion, based on the size of the payor (Quinex stated that it had five full-time and four part-time employees). Although there was no allegation that Quinex had behaved willfully, the IBLA stated that it did behave knowingly, because of the significant time between receipt of notice of the order to report and pay and final correction of the reports. The regulations define “knowingly or willfully” to include an act or failure to act committed with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard of the facts surrounding the event or violation. 30 C.F.R. § 1241.3(b). No proof of specific intent to defraud is required as a condition to assessement of a civil penalty for knowing and willful violations of the regulations.
Mining, oil and gas, wind, solar and transmission companies who have struggled to comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) received an early Christmas present from the U.S. Department of the Interior’s lawyer. On December 22, 2017, the Principal Deputy Solicitor issued a binding Memorandum Opinion, M-37050, to limit the reach of the MBTA to intentional, unlawful acts of hunting and poaching. In a 41-page legal analysis, the Solicitor concludes, “The text, history and purpose of the MBTA demonstrate that it is a law limited in relevant part to affirmative and purposeful actions, such as hunting and poaching, that reduce migratory birds and their nests and eggs, by killing or capturing, to human control. . . . Interpreting the MBTA to criminalize incidental takings raises serious due process concerns and is contrary to the fundamental principle that ambiguity in criminal statutes must be resolved in favor of defendants.” This action came in response to Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth (March 28, 2017) and was a regulatory review specifically identified by Interior in the “Final Report: Review of the Department of the Interior Actions that Potentially Burden Domestic Energy,” (October 24, 2017) at pp. 32-33.
Community land trusts (“CLTs”) are gaining popularity across the country as many communities and city leaders search for ways to develop and maintain affordable housing. Although CLTs are not a new tool, they are becoming more widespread with over 200 now in operation and more likely to follow as people flock to city centers.1 CLTs developed as a mechanism to combat complex social issues - the first CLT was established in Georgia as part of the civil rights movement - and they are certainly not without their critics. It is undeniable, however, that the demand for affordable housing only continues to rise and CLTs may be one answer to this growing problem.
A CLT is defined by the Institute for Community Economics as “an organization created to hold land for the benefit of a community and of individuals within the community.”2 Although typically a nonprofit organization, there are numerous CLT models that can be tailored to fit the community in which they operate. CLTs are typically governed by a board of trustees or directors and acquire land either through purchase or donation. The acquired land can be vacant, agricultural, or residential in nature, but the goal is to determine the best use of this land in the community and develop it accordingly.
The Surge in DUC Wells Begs the Question: How Long Can a DUC Well Hold a Lease?
Just over a year ago, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) began including a supplement to its Drilling Productivity Report that contains monthly estimates of the number of drilled but uncompleted (“DUC”) wells in seven key oil and gas producing basins (the Anadarko, Appalachia, Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, Haynesville, and Permian basins). Prior DUC well inventory numbers made headlines starting in late 2015 (see here and here). The most recent EIA Drilling Productivity Report 1 shows that while DUC well inventory began to subside in the latter part of 2016 and first part of 2017, there has been a recent surge - largely led by significant growth in the Permian basin.
The economic impact of completing and bringing these wells online could create a surge in oil supply and destabilize recent crude oil price gains. Aside from the potential implications to crude oil prices, one consideration that remains top of mind for operators with DUC wells on maturing oil and gas leases is whether, or for how long, a DUC well can hold a lease.
Gazprom, Russia’s government owned natural gas company, has for decades supplied many Eastern European countries with most or all of their natural gas. It has also had a habit of using its dominant market position to bully its customers into paying more, often by cutting off natural gas supplies needed for heating in midwinter. Gazprom reduced or completely stopped flows of gas to Ukraine in 2006 and 2008, to 18 European countries in 2009, to Ukraine and Poland in 2014, and to Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and Bosnia in 2015.
Several years ago Russia and Gazprom identified U.S. hydraulic fracturing technology (fracking) as a threat to Gazprom’s market share, especially its near monopoly over supplying gas to Eastern Europe. The Russians realized that fracking technology had the potential to undermine their position by increasing the development of natural gas that would compete on the open market with Russian gas. In an attempt to address this threat, Russia turned to RT (formerly Russia Today), Russia’s government controlled television network aimed at influencing audiences outside of Russia.
Most decisions of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA). However, some decisions must first be reviewed by the applicable BLM State Director. Parties who wish to appeal from decisions issued under the oil and gas operating regulations (43 C.F.R. Part 3160) and unitization regulations (43 C.F.R. Part 3180) must first seek State Director review before appealing to the IBLA.
Until recently, it was unclear whether a decision granting, denying or lifting a suspension of a federal oil and gas lease was a decision issued under the Part 3160 regulations, and therefore subject to State Director review, or was a decision issued under the Part 3100 regulations appealable directly to the IBLA. The reason for this uncertainty was that regulations pertaining to suspensions of leases are found in both Part 3160 (43 C.F.R. §3165.1) and Part 3100 (43 C.F.R. § 3103.4-4). Consequently, in the past, if a suspension request was denied by the BLM, we advised clients to file both a State Director review request and a provisional notice of appeal with the IBLA. Of course, the duplicate processes added cost and time to the appeal. In their responses to such provisional notices of appeal, the solicitor’s office generally took the position that such decisions should first be reviewed by the State Director. Now there is a recent decision of the IBLA that clarifies that decisions challenging a BLM suspension decision should first be reviewed by the State Director under the State Director review regulations.
In Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 190 IBLA 152 (2017), the IBLA addressed the ambiguity as to the proper appeal route from suspension decisions. It acknowledged that suspsensions are addressed in both parts of the regulations but noted that the regulation at § 3165.1(b) directs the authorized officer to act on suspension applications filed under § 3103.4-4, so that the decision-making authority is more clearly placed in the Part 3160 regulations. The Board also noted that, historically, when the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) managed operations on federal leases, suspension decisions were first appealable to the Director of the USGS and then to the IBLA. Finally, the IBLA cited to a few of its earlier decisions which, although not directly addressing the question of whether suspension decisions should first be reviewed by the State Director, at least assumed that was the proper route. With the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance decision, it is now clear that review of any BLM decision granting or denying a suspension of an oil and gas lease must first be reviewed by the State Director under the regulation at § 3165.3(b).
Six weeks following the City of Thornton’s adoption of strict new regulations on oil and gas operations, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (“COGA”) and the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) have filed suit, in what looks to be just the latest clash in Colorado’s struggle over who manages oil and gas in the state – the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) or cities and towns?
Upon completion of the majority of due diligence, frustration with the transactional process has generally started to set in, at least for sellers. However, the process is far from over. If a purchase and sale agreement has not already been signed, the real negotiations begin at this stage. It may also take time to draft other major transaction documents such as employment contracts and forward-looking operational agreements such as operating agreements and shareholder agreements.
It is extraordinarily important for parties to review all documents, or at least changes to those documents, as those documents and changes are prepared. The parties should discuss the documents with their attorneys and accountants so that they understand the financial and legal implications for each document as well as the purpose of each document. The role of accountants, attorneys and similar advisors is to provide advice, counsel and guidance during the negotiation process; however, all decisions are ultimately up to the parties. Consequently, the parties must understand the implications and nuances of each term and condition in the various documents.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 § 1719
 § 1241
 § 1241
 §3165
 § 3103
 § 3165
 § 3103
 § 3165