|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania
Litigation Update
Over the
past several months, we have provided updates on
a variety of Pennsylvania litigation matters
that have been percolating in Pennsylvania's
trial courts, appellate courts and before
various administrative bodies. This month we
want to examine the current posture of several
of the cases we have featured previously - the
debate over whether a ban on fracking will be on
the November 8 ballot in Peters Township, and
the status of the appeal in Butler v.
Charles Power Estate.
Peters
Township
Since
our initial update on the lawsuit brought by
Peters Township to keep an activist group from
having a referendum on amending the Township's
Home Rule Charter aimed at preventing drilling
in the Township put on the November 8 ballot,
Washington County Court of Common Pleas Judge
Paul Pozonsky ruled against the Township,
allowing the question to go to the voters. The
Township had sought an injunction against
placing the question on the ballot, saying it
would subject the Township to lawsuits from
individuals and gas companies. The Township also
argued that, if the referendum were approved,
the Township would be in violation of the
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, and that the
recent ordinance passed by the Township
addressing drilling would be nullified. Judge
Pozonsky ruled that the court lacked
jurisdiction to rule on pre-election challenges
"without an immediate harm caused by the
presence of the measure on the
ballot."
Rather than appeal Judge
Pozonsky's decision prior to the election,
Peters Township is attempting to drum up grass
roots support among the electorate to defeat the
referendum. The Township sent a letter to every
Peters Township resident on October 24 urging
that they vote against the anti-drilling
referendum. The letter states:
"A Home
Rule Charter Referendum on the ballot Nov. 8
will have numerous serious effects on the future
of our community if approved. On the surface, it
leads voters to believe that it's solely a ban
on Marcellus Shale drilling in our community;
however, if you read the `fine print,' it's much
more than that. It changes landowner rights,
opens the Township to numerous lawsuits, and
puts the future of our community in financial
jeopardy. And, what's even more detrimental is
that this referendum violates residents'
federally protected constitutional rights. It
also proposes that the Township is not subject
to both the Pennsylvania and United States
Constitutions. If passed, this amendment raises
serious concerns over the validity of our Home
Rule Charter and the financial future of our
community. We have an outstanding community and
want to maintain its natural environment for
future generations. And, because of that, Peters
Township Council has enacted zoning ordinances
to protect residents while strictly regulating
Gas Drilling."
It is believed that this
is the first such referendum of its kind in the
nation. The actual language of the referendum
that will appear on the November 8 ballot is
almost absurd in its scope, proposing to
invalidate permits and licenses issued by the
state and federal government and proposing to
deny corporations engaged in the extraction of
natural gas rights guaranteed under the state
and federal constitutions. The full text of the
referendum is as follows:
Attention: All
Registered Electors of Peters Township
A
referendum question amending the Home Rule
Charter appears on the Township ballot as
follows:
Should the Peters Township Home
Rule Charter be amended: to add a community bill
of rights enumerating rights to water, natural
communities, a sustainable energy future, and
local self-government, and to secure those
rights by:
1. Prohibiting individuals and
corporations from extracting natural gas in
Peters Township, from installing pipelines and
compressor stations and from depositing, storing
or transporting waste water or other by-products
of natural gas development within Peters
Township; and,
2. Invalidating permits,
licenses, privileges or charters issued by the
state or federal agencies inconsistent with this
amendment; and
3. Denying corporations
engaged in the extraction of natural gas rights
guaranteed under state and federal
constitutions.
Read
the full article on our website.
| |
|
| |
Water Supplies:
Defending Against a Presumption of
Liability
by M. Katherine
Crockett
Charleston,
W.Va. With
the recent proliferation of horizontal drilling
for natural gas in the Marcellus region, there
continues to be significant scrutiny on potential
water quality impacts, including impacts to
sources of water supply. Given the current status
of the law in Pennsylvania and West Virginia
imposing liability upon oil and gas operators for
the diminution or contamination of public water
supplies, operators may want to consider a
proactive approach to preserving their available
defenses to such liability at the outset of the
drilling activity.
Click here to read about current law
in W.Va. and Pa. and our recommendations.
|
Discussion of
Consolidation in the
Industry
by Ronald W.
Schuler
Pittsburgh,
Pa.
Independent
oil and gas companies working on the development
of the Marcellus Shale region have been victims of
their own success to some degree. There seems to
be a consensus among commentators that all the
successful drilling activity in Appalachia, among
other areas of the country, combined with
relatively stable consumption of natural gas, has
led to a prolonged trough in natural gas
prices. Although few believe that cheap gas
is a permanent circumstance, independent producers
with large inventories of shale acreage have
nevertheless had some difficulty balancing the
high costs of drilling and producing shale wells,
with conservation of operating capital, in a
market that currently views gas production as a
low-return proposition.
Read the full article on our website.
|
Spilman Attorneys
Address Marcellus Communications Professionals at
Hydraulic Fracturing
Initiative
Houston,
Texas - More than 150 communications
professionals from the Marcellus & Utica Shale
gas industry, including public relations, media,
stakeholder and community relations, corporate,
and public affairs specialists, are gathering
today and tomorrow at the Media & Stakeholder
Relations Hydraulic Fracturing Initiative in
Houston, Texas.
A
delegation of attorneys from the law firm Spilman
Thomas & Battle, PLLC are participating in the
initiative, joining industry leaders and
communications professionals to provide valuable
perspectives and insights on message management.
Read this story on our website.
|
Natural
Gas Expansion Fuels $21B Pipeline Deal
A
deal reached on Oct. 16 is predicted to boost
efforts to transport natural gas from the
Marcellus and Utica Shales to the Gulf Coast.
Kinder Morgan plans to buy El Paso Corp., which
will more than double the size of Kinder Morgan's
pipeline network. The system could transport up to
90,000 barrels per day through the 80,000-mile
pipeline network. Click here to read more
about the deal.
|
Helpful
Resource: FracFocus
The
FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry provides
general information about hydraulic fracturing and
groundwater protection. It also allows you to
search for information about the chemicals used in
fracking. Click here to explore the
website.
| | | |
Marcellus
Shale Team Member
Sharon
L. Potter (Wheeling, W.Va.)
Shari,
a former U.S. Attorney, practices across a broad range of
areas due to her background as a Federal & State
prosecutor. She handles criminal defense work in environmental
and financial cases and assists companies with internal
investigations, compliance matters, evidence preservation and
negotiations with law enforcement and regulatory agencies. To
view Shari's full professional biography, click here. |
|
Please be aware that this email publication is
distributed with the understanding that the author, publisher
and distributor are not rendering legal or other professional
advice on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assume
no liability whatsoever in connection with its use.
Responsible Attorney: Michael J.
Basile | | |
