Source: https://oilandgas.jacksonkelly.com/legislation/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:13:44+00:00

Document:
Ohio Supreme Court to hear case seeking to expand the implied covenant to reasonably develop to include the obligation to explore deeper formations in Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Company, Washington App. No. 16CA9, 2016-Ohio-5082.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Company could have a substantial impact in Ohio in litigation concerning implied covenants to develop.
This article was authored by Elizabeth Elmore, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.
This article was authored by Robert G. McLusky and Douglas J. Crouse.
Opponents of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline argued that the word “and” in the sentence requires that in order to use the statute, gas companies must show that the purpose of their work is BOTH to select the most advantageous route AND to satisfy regulatory requirements. They argued that the pipeline needed to show that the survey work was required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which must approve interstate natural gas pipelines. Earlier this week, the Circuit Court ruled that surveys could proceed as long as the proponents met either of the two conditions for gaining access to private properties.
Last year, the Nelson County Court reportedly barred Dominion from surveying the pipeline route until it first complied with sufficient written notice of the intent to survey.
In both Kentucky and West Virginia, the statutes authorizing similar surveys require a demonstration that the project be for a “public use” or “public purpose.” Courts in those states have ruled that purely interstate pipelines that do not provide an opportunity for in-state consumers to purchase the gas do not meet those definitions and cannot rely on state statutes to conduct surveys. While pipelines can eventually obtain a right of access from FERC under the Natural Gas Act, they generally cannot do so until after they receive FERC approval.
This article was authored by Robert G. McLusky, Matthew S. Tyree and Kelley M. Goes.
A little known federal agency in charge of pipeline safety has just issued a new regulation that represents a major change in its enforcement authority over regulated pipelines. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), an independent agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, has announced an “Interim Final Rule” (IFR) on its website which will authorize it to issue “emergency orders” to the owners and operators of pipelines which move natural gas or hazardous substances. The IFR is intended to fill a gap in the enforcement powers that PHMSA historically has possessed.
Congress passed PL 114-183, the PIPES Act (‘‘Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016’’) in June. The statue imposes a significant change in the federal regulation of pipeline safety since Congress first passed legislation over interstate gas transmission in 1968. The PIPES Act recognizes that much of the existing pipeline system is very old, and some pipelines are now utilized in ways not originally contemplated. Section 16 of PIPES amends 49 USC §60117 by adding a new subsection “o” which authorizes PHMSA to issue an “emergency order” whenever its finds that an “unsafe condition or practice, or a combination of unsafe conditions and practices, constitutes or is causing an imminent hazard[.]” Unlike its existing enforcement powers, the emergency order will have an immediate legal effect upon issuance although administrative review is authorized once it is in place.
Under its existing authority, PHMSA was authorized to issue “corrective action orders” which have an immediate enforcement effect and a “notice of proposed safety order”. Both orders could be issued to a single pipeline owner or operator, and both could be contested before have legal effect. PHMSA describes its new “emergency order” as one which could “affect multiple or all operators and/or pipeline systems that share a common characteristic or condition.” The agency provides examples such as “(1) where a natural disaster affects many pipelines in a specific geographic region; (2) where a serious flaw has been discovered in pipe, equipment manufacturing, or supplier materials; and (3) where an accident reveals a specific industry practice that is unsafe and needs immediate or temporary correction.” So instead of being limited to a single entity, PHMSA will be able to exercise enforcement against a class however it chooses to identify it.
In addition to serving the substantive purpose described, the IFR also has been promulgated with an unusual procedural effect. Normally, any federal regulation must be formally proposed and open for public comment before it can have legal effect. Because Congress required PHMSA to pass temporary regulations when it enacted PIPES, the “emergency order” IFR, however, will take effect immediately when it will be published in the Federal Register. PHMSA will receive comments on the IFR because by statute it is scheduled to expire by mid-March, 2017. Assuming that no gaps are identified between now and next March, the regulation announced is one that the mid-stream industry will likely have to live with for many years to come.
This article has been prepared by Blair Gardner of Jackson Kelly PLLC.
On September 15, 2016 the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision resolving key issues involving the application of Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. § 5301.56. The Dormant Mineral Act was first enacted in 1989 to facilitate the termination of dormant mineral interests, but was amended in 2006 to require notice to the holder of a severed mineral interest and the recording of certain instruments evidencing and memorializing abandonment. Several cases pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio turned on whether the 1989 version of the Dormant Mineral Act was self-executing, such that a dormant mineral interest would automatically vest in the surface owner by operation of law.
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the “1989 Dormant Mineral Act was not self-executing and did not automatically transfer dormant mineral rights by operation of law; rather, the surface holder was required to bring a quiet title action seeking a decree that the mineral rights had been abandoned in order to merge those rights into the surface estate.” Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5796 at ¶ 40.
Further the Court in Corban held that the 2006 version of the Dormant Mineral Act applies to all claims brought after June 30, 2006. The Court relied on this ruling in Corban to resolve this issue in several other pending cases, including Walker v. Shondrick-Nau (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5793), and Albanese v. Batman (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5814). In addition the holding in Corban provides that the payment of delay rentals pursuant to an oil and gas lease is not a title transaction or “savings event” under the statute.
The decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio is expected to broadly affect surface owners and mineral holders of severed mineral interests which may have been subject to unification under the 1989 Dormant Mineral Act, as well as their respective lessees.
This article was authored by Andrew Schock, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author, see here.
– inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
That its finding could be due to either a rarity of effects on drinking water resources or a paucity of data and studies.
Prospective Case Studies: The SAB expressed concern that EPA had planned originally to conduct original research, but had not done so. It recommended that EPA delineate the planned studies and explain why they were not undertaken.
Lack of probability and risk of failure discussion.
Lack of information on toxicity of fracking chemicals.
Failure to distinguish between: i) hydraulic fracturing vs. constituents of “produced fluids”; and ii) constituents/impacts unique to hydraulic fracturing vs. those that exist with conventional oil and gas development.
The Natural Gas Act (“NGA”) of 1938 grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) exclusive authority to regulate sales and transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce. To that end, Section 7 of the NGA empowers FERC to authorize the construction and operation of interstate transportation facilities—i.e., pipelines. FERC does so by determining whether a project serves the “public convenience and necessity.” The NGA preempts state environmental regulation of interstate natural gas facilities, except it allows states to participate in environmental regulation of pipelines under the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the Clean Water Act. 15 U.S.C. § 717b(d).
The Clean Water Act intersects pipeline construction most frequently in the issuance of § 404 “fill” permits, § 402 stormwater construction NPDES permits and the issuance of water quality certifications under § 401. The NPDES program for discharges of non-fill pollutants in most states is run by state agencies rather than by EPA, though EPA has an oversight role. The § 404 fill program is administered primarily by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. States can assume authority over that program as well—however, only a handful ever have, including New Jersey. Additionally, § 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that states “certify” that any discharge from the construction or operation of facilities requiring a federal license or permit will comply with state water quality standards.
Challenges to state-issued NPDES permits are typically required to be brought before administrative law judges or boards under applicable state laws. Likewise, most states provide some manner for challenging a state § 401 certification. Finally, Corps-issued § 404 permits may be challenged administratively by the applicant or under the Administrative Procedure Act in federal district court by third parties.
In 2005, however, the NGA was amended to grant the courts of appeals jurisdiction to review actions undertaken by state administrative agencies to issue, condition or deny permits and licenses “pursuant to federal law.” In the recent case of Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. PADEP, et al., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that § 401 certifications and § 404 permits issued by state agencies for FERC-regulated gas pipelines may be challenged directly in circuit courts of appeals. There, groups opposed to a pipeline proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp. challenged state-issued § 401 certifications by Pennsylvania and New Jersey and a § 404 permit issued by New Jersey. The states argued that while these certificates and permits are “required” by the federal Clean Water Act, they are not issued “pursuant to” the Clean Water Act and, therefore, could not be challenged directly in the Third Circuit. The Court disagreed and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the challenges.
Although the Court upheld the issuance of the permits, it viewed its authority to review the state permits broadly. The Third Circuit adopted an expansive view of its own jurisdiction in the context of New Jersey’s permits. New Jersey is one of the few states to have authority to issue Clean Water Act § 404 permits. It does so pursuant to a state program that includes elements not required by the Clean Water Act. New Jersey argued that challenges to these “state only” portions of its permit program were beyond the Court’s authority, but the Court disagreed, finding these “state only” components to be integral to the federally-required components of the program.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §60117
 § 5301
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 717
 § 404
 § 402
 § 401
 § 404
 § 401
 § 401
 § 404
 v. 
 § 401
 § 404
 § 401
 § 404
 § 404