The decision in a case before New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, that finds the concept of force majeure does not grant energy companies the right to extend oil and gas leases beyond the initial term even if a state government moratorium or ban is placed on shale drilling. In essence, it guts the force majeure clause in state contracts, rendering such a clause useless and screwing contract law in New York State. A very poor decision.
Payment of Delay Rentals Alone Cannot Extend Lease Into Secondary TermRobert Burnett
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed the issue of whether the mere payment of delay rentals
can extend a gas lease beyond its primary term. In Hite v. Falcon Partners, et al., 2011 WL 9632 (January 4,
2011), the Superior Court rejected the gas producer’s argument that a non-producing lease can be preserved
indefinitely simply by making delay rental payments. In siding with the landowner, the Superior Court affirmed
the trial court’s cancellation of the non-producing lease and sent a clear warning to gas operators throughout
the Commonwealth. Following Hite, there is no question that the so-called “automatic termination rule” is
alive and well in Pennsylvania. As such, landowners and gas operators alike should carefully review the Hite
decision and its potential impact on non-producing leases.
This document is a consent decree between the United States of America, Hawaii Department of Health, and Hawaii Department of Transportation regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act by Hawaii Department of Transportation for failing to comply with stormwater discharge permits and an EPA administrative order. The consent decree establishes requirements for Hawaii Department of Transportation to comply with the Clean Water Act and its stormwater discharge permits for Honolulu and Kalaeloa Barbers Point Harbors, including developing stormwater management plans and implementing best management practices. It outlines general provisions, definitions, requirements for compliance, approval processes, certifications, injunctive relief, penalties, dispute resolution, and other terms of the agreement.
West Virginia House of Delegates Bill (HB) 4558 which would allow "unitization" or more commonly called forced pooling of land for the purposes of oil and gas drilling. This bill and variations of it have been introduced for several years running in the WV 60-day legislative session. So far none of them have passed.
This document provides guidance for applicants on obtaining consents and access arrangements for mining activities on public conservation land in New Zealand. It outlines the processes for applying for and obtaining minimum impact activity consents and access arrangements under the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Minimum impact activities only requiring hand tools can be authorized with a consent, while other prospecting, exploration or mining requires an access arrangement. The document details the application steps, timeframes, costs and requirements for both consents and access arrangements. It provides guidance on the modules and processes involved for assessing access arrangement applications on public conservation land.
FEMA Policy Barring FEMA Money to Buy Out Flooded Properties with Shale LeasesMarcellus Drilling News
A policy enacted "overnight" with no public comment by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that states FEMA will not issue flood insurance nor will they purchase any flooded or properties damaged from storms that have an existing lease for shale drilling. FEMA is discriminating against landowners with leases--materially harming U.S. citizens that need and deserve FEMA assistance.
A set of revisions/rule changes that impact West Virginia's shale drilling industry. While the new rules don't significantly alter existing regulations, the subtle changes can lead to big headaches when enforced.
The document discusses four cases related to temporary occupation licenses (TOL) under Malaysian land law:
1) Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin - A holder of a TOL to pluck coconuts was awarded damages after another licensee cut down trees on the land.
2) Julaika Bivi v Mydin - A TOL holder can bring an ejectment action against a trespasser occupying part of a house on the licensed land.
3) Hee Cheng v Krishnan - An attempted sale of rights under a TOL was deemed unlawful under the Contracts Ordinance.
4) Paruvathy d/o Murugiah v Krishnan - The principle
This document discusses the legal definition and ownership of fixtures under Malaysian law. It notes that Malaysian law follows the English common law of fixtures. Under this law:
1) Anything fixed to the land, such as chattels affixed by the landlord or previous tenants, becomes part of the land and passes to subsequent tenants unless expressly excluded.
2) Fixtures affixed by the tenant must usually be delivered up to the landlord at the end of the tenancy, unless the tenant has a legal right to remove them.
3) Whether a tenant can remove fixtures may depend on any agreement between the parties or special legal rules. Fixtures the tenant cannot remove are called "landlord's fixtures" while removable
Payment of Delay Rentals Alone Cannot Extend Lease Into Secondary TermRobert Burnett
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed the issue of whether the mere payment of delay rentals
can extend a gas lease beyond its primary term. In Hite v. Falcon Partners, et al., 2011 WL 9632 (January 4,
2011), the Superior Court rejected the gas producer’s argument that a non-producing lease can be preserved
indefinitely simply by making delay rental payments. In siding with the landowner, the Superior Court affirmed
the trial court’s cancellation of the non-producing lease and sent a clear warning to gas operators throughout
the Commonwealth. Following Hite, there is no question that the so-called “automatic termination rule” is
alive and well in Pennsylvania. As such, landowners and gas operators alike should carefully review the Hite
decision and its potential impact on non-producing leases.
This document is a consent decree between the United States of America, Hawaii Department of Health, and Hawaii Department of Transportation regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act by Hawaii Department of Transportation for failing to comply with stormwater discharge permits and an EPA administrative order. The consent decree establishes requirements for Hawaii Department of Transportation to comply with the Clean Water Act and its stormwater discharge permits for Honolulu and Kalaeloa Barbers Point Harbors, including developing stormwater management plans and implementing best management practices. It outlines general provisions, definitions, requirements for compliance, approval processes, certifications, injunctive relief, penalties, dispute resolution, and other terms of the agreement.
West Virginia House of Delegates Bill (HB) 4558 which would allow "unitization" or more commonly called forced pooling of land for the purposes of oil and gas drilling. This bill and variations of it have been introduced for several years running in the WV 60-day legislative session. So far none of them have passed.
This document provides guidance for applicants on obtaining consents and access arrangements for mining activities on public conservation land in New Zealand. It outlines the processes for applying for and obtaining minimum impact activity consents and access arrangements under the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Minimum impact activities only requiring hand tools can be authorized with a consent, while other prospecting, exploration or mining requires an access arrangement. The document details the application steps, timeframes, costs and requirements for both consents and access arrangements. It provides guidance on the modules and processes involved for assessing access arrangement applications on public conservation land.
FEMA Policy Barring FEMA Money to Buy Out Flooded Properties with Shale LeasesMarcellus Drilling News
A policy enacted "overnight" with no public comment by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that states FEMA will not issue flood insurance nor will they purchase any flooded or properties damaged from storms that have an existing lease for shale drilling. FEMA is discriminating against landowners with leases--materially harming U.S. citizens that need and deserve FEMA assistance.
A set of revisions/rule changes that impact West Virginia's shale drilling industry. While the new rules don't significantly alter existing regulations, the subtle changes can lead to big headaches when enforced.
The document discusses four cases related to temporary occupation licenses (TOL) under Malaysian land law:
1) Mohamed v Kunji Mohidin - A holder of a TOL to pluck coconuts was awarded damages after another licensee cut down trees on the land.
2) Julaika Bivi v Mydin - A TOL holder can bring an ejectment action against a trespasser occupying part of a house on the licensed land.
3) Hee Cheng v Krishnan - An attempted sale of rights under a TOL was deemed unlawful under the Contracts Ordinance.
4) Paruvathy d/o Murugiah v Krishnan - The principle
This document discusses the legal definition and ownership of fixtures under Malaysian law. It notes that Malaysian law follows the English common law of fixtures. Under this law:
1) Anything fixed to the land, such as chattels affixed by the landlord or previous tenants, becomes part of the land and passes to subsequent tenants unless expressly excluded.
2) Fixtures affixed by the tenant must usually be delivered up to the landlord at the end of the tenancy, unless the tenant has a legal right to remove them.
3) Whether a tenant can remove fixtures may depend on any agreement between the parties or special legal rules. Fixtures the tenant cannot remove are called "landlord's fixtures" while removable
WV House Bill 2688 which provides for the unitization (forced pooling) of interests in drilling units in connection with all horizontal oil or gas wells. The bill in various forms has been introduced each year since 2009 and has ultimately failed. This year supporters have modified the bill to be less favorable to the gas industry in hopes of passage.
The Ohio Supreme Court decision in a case that started with three landowners and was later turned into a class action. The case claimed that landowner leases with Beck Energy Corp. were void and should be terminated because Beck never drilled wells on their property and that a provision allowing Beck to pay a nominal delay fee was against public policy. A lower court agreed, but it was overturned by an appeals court and now, the appeals court decision stands as ruled by the Supreme Court.
Alienation refers to the act of transferring possession of state land from the state authority to another person or body. Under the National Land Code 1965, the state authority can alienate land for up to 99 years by granting ownership rights, subject to payment of land revenue. The key effects of alienated land include the proprietor obtaining a title to the land and secured rights to develop and invest in the land for a long period. However, the proprietor must adhere to any express or implied conditions relating to the permitted land use. Overall, alienation allows the state to dispose of land while providing proprietors certain benefits and long-term security over the land.
This document summarizes procedures and conditions for forfeiture of land under the National Land Code of Malaysia. It outlines that land can be forfeited due to non-payment of rent or breach of conditions. The procedures for forfeiture due to non-payment include serving notices, making an order for forfeiture if payment is not made, and publishing a notification. Land can also be forfeited for breach of express or implied conditions, such as failure to develop the land. The registered proprietor may be fined or instructed to remedy the breach before forfeiture is enforced. Forfeited land reverts to the State Authority free of titles and interests. Appeals against forfeiture orders can be made to the High Court within 3 months.
OH 7th District Court of Appeals Decision in Hupp v. Beck Energy CorpMarcellus Drilling News
The Seventh District Court of Appeals in Ohio overturned a lower court ruling and ruled in favor of Beck Energy Corp and XTO Energy, a major victory for the drillers and major defeat for the landowners in Monroe and Belmont counties who say their land never got drilled and they wanted to re-sign with another company.
PA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State LandsMarcellus Drilling News
In a crushing blow to the litigious anti-drilling group Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (PEDF), the PA Commonwealth Court ruled yesterday against the PEDF's lawsuit that attempts o stop all drilling and leasing of state-owned lands for oil and gas drilling. The court said a) such drilling is just fine and b) the decision of whether or not to allow drilling on state-owned lands (and which parcels) rests with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
The document discusses regulations regarding the removal of rock material from various types of land in Malaysia. It outlines that the State Authority may permit extraction from state, alienated, mining, and reserved lands. Permits must be issued by the relevant land administrator and are valid only for the calendar year issued. Permits cannot be assigned or transferred upon death and holders must pay penalties for operating after expiration. Permits may require a deposit from the holder to ensure performance of obligations and land rehabilitation. Acts under a valid permit do not breach any conditions affecting the land under other laws.
This document discusses the procedure for acquiring state land under the National Land Code (NLC) of Malaysia. It summarizes a court case where an applicant paid the land revenue amount 8 months after the specified deadline in the notice. A third party challenged the alienation, arguing the approval had lapsed. However, the court held that the state authority accepting late payment implied a fresh approval. The decision showed that paying land revenue within the deadline is not mandatory under NLC, and the registration of title is the primary consideration in establishing ownership of the land.
Throughout Pennsylvania it is not uncommon to encounter gas wells that were drilled over 100 years ago. These ancient wells were drilled pursuant to oil/gas leases that often pre-date the turn of the century. In many cases, the original lessee only drilled a single well and never developed the remaining acreage under the lease. Can that single well drilled in the 1920’s now hold an entire 200 tract of land? This is a common and troubling issue for landowners throughout the Commonwealth. In a recent decision of the federal district court in Pittsburgh, the trial court recognized this hardship and allowed a lease cancellation suit filed by the landowner to move forward.
An important Dormant Minerals Right Act (DMA) case before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court held that under the DMA: (1) a recorded oil and gas lease is a title transaction that serves as a savings event that prevents minerals from being abandoned to a surface owner; but (2) that the unrecorded expiration of an oil and gas lease is not a savings event.
On the Rocks Presentation - Lease Maintenance (February 2015)Burleson LLP
This document provides a summary of key provisions in oil and gas leases, including continuous development provisions and shut-in royalty provisions. Continuous development provisions aim to allow lessees to complete wells begun during the primary term and continue the lease without production. Shut-in royalty provisions provide for constructive production when wells are capable of producing but shut-in. Both provisions contain ambiguous terms that have been subject to litigation regarding their precise meaning and requirements. The document advises lessees to clearly define terms in their leases to avoid disputes.
LAND LAW 1 slides rights and powers of the state authority 2014xareejx
The document discusses land ownership laws in Malaysia. It explains that all land belongs to the state authority, which has sole power to dispose of and alienate land. Unregistered long possession of land does not confer ownership rights, as adverse possession is not recognized against the state or private landowners under the National Land Code. Squatters have no legal rights or cause of action regardless of duration of occupation.
The document provides information about two sites in Kentucky - the Maxey Flats Disposal Site and the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. It summarizes that the Maxey Flats site accepted low-level radioactive waste until 1977 and is undergoing remediation expected to be complete by 2003, at which point the Commonwealth of Kentucky will assume long-term stewardship responsibilities. It also summarizes that the Paducah plant has been operating since 1952 to enrich uranium, and that DOE is currently conducting cleanup activities of environmental contamination from plant operations expected to be complete by 2010, along with long-term monitoring and maintenance.
This document summarizes a presentation on emerging trends in groundwater case law. It discusses how the landmark case Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day established that landowners own the groundwater beneath their property, but that groundwater conservation districts can still regulate pumping. It notes emerging issues around what regulations constitute a "taking" requiring compensation, and the extent of a GCD's authority. The document also discusses cases related to takings claims, a GCD acting within its authority, the application of oil and gas law to severed groundwater estates, and regulation affording landowners a "fair share" of groundwater. It concludes more cases on takings will likely emerge and the extent to which oil and gas principles will apply to ground
The document summarizes significant groundwater bills from the 85th Texas Legislative session. It discusses bills relating to desired future conditions appeals, aquifer storage and recovery permitting, brackish groundwater production zones, permit renewals with groundwater conservation districts, groundwater conservation district board member liability, water well driller apprentice programs, disclosure of groundwater conservation districts during property sales, groundwater conservation district permitting decisions, Texas Water Development Board aquifer mapping, and governmental transparency legislation.
The document discusses private caveats under Malaysian land law. A private caveat is a statutory injunction entered by the Registrar upon application by a person claiming an interest in land. It preserves the status quo of the land and suspends registration until disputes over claims are resolved. A private caveat does not create or enhance the caveator's interest, but rather serves as notice of a claim and prohibits dealings with the land pending litigation. The requirements for entering, extending, and removing a private caveat are outlined according to sections of the National Land Code.
Motion to Intervene in ET Rover Pipeline Application for Eminent Domain befor...Marcellus Drilling News
A motion by Columbus, OH law firm Goldman & Braunstein to prevent ET Rover from obtaining eminent domain to install the ET Rover pipeline without first negotiating with individual landowners. Eminent domain takes all of the bargaining power away from landowners. This motion attempts to remedy that.
AN ACT TO (1) RECONSTITUTE THE MINING COMMISSION AS THE MINING AND ENERGY COMMISSION, (2) REQUIRE THE MINING AND ENERGY COMMISSION AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES TO DEVELOP A MODERN REGULATORY PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE, INCLUDING THE USE OF HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR THAT PURPOSE, (3) AUTHORIZE HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING, BUT PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR THESE ACTIVITIES PENDING SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION, (4) ENHANCE LANDOWNER AND PUBLIC PROTECTIONS RELATED TO HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING, AND (5) ESTABLISH THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY.
The document summarizes several cases related to easements in Malaysian land law. In the first case, Alfred Templeton & Ors v Low Yat Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor, the court granted equitable relief to the plaintiff and ordered an easement be registered based on promises made by the defendant during a land sale that led the plaintiff to believe they would have right of way access. In Datin Siti Hajar v Murugasu, the court ruled that long use of a road across the plaintiff's land did not constitute an easement since it was not expressly granted. And in EW Talalla v Ng Yee Fong & Anor and Tan Wee Choon v Ong Peck
The document discusses and compares the Deed and Torrens systems of land registration.
[1] The Deed system involved exhaustive searches of title documents back to the original Crown grant, which was complex, expensive and uncertain. [2] The Torrens system introduced in Malaysia simplified conveyancing by making registration of titles and dealings compulsory, with the register providing conclusive evidence of ownership. Key principles are the mirror and curtain principles. [3] The objectives were to provide certainty, security of title and facilitate transfer compared to the defects of the Deed system.
OH Supreme Court Decision: State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.Marcellus Drilling News
Decision by the Ohio Supreme Court in a case striking down so-called "home rule" laws in which local municipalities try to prevent shale drilling by enacting local zoning regulations. The court found that according to OH law, the state and only the state may regulate where and when drilling is done. A huge victory for both landowners and the shale industry in the Buckeye State.
WV House Bill 2688 which provides for the unitization (forced pooling) of interests in drilling units in connection with all horizontal oil or gas wells. The bill in various forms has been introduced each year since 2009 and has ultimately failed. This year supporters have modified the bill to be less favorable to the gas industry in hopes of passage.
The Ohio Supreme Court decision in a case that started with three landowners and was later turned into a class action. The case claimed that landowner leases with Beck Energy Corp. were void and should be terminated because Beck never drilled wells on their property and that a provision allowing Beck to pay a nominal delay fee was against public policy. A lower court agreed, but it was overturned by an appeals court and now, the appeals court decision stands as ruled by the Supreme Court.
Alienation refers to the act of transferring possession of state land from the state authority to another person or body. Under the National Land Code 1965, the state authority can alienate land for up to 99 years by granting ownership rights, subject to payment of land revenue. The key effects of alienated land include the proprietor obtaining a title to the land and secured rights to develop and invest in the land for a long period. However, the proprietor must adhere to any express or implied conditions relating to the permitted land use. Overall, alienation allows the state to dispose of land while providing proprietors certain benefits and long-term security over the land.
This document summarizes procedures and conditions for forfeiture of land under the National Land Code of Malaysia. It outlines that land can be forfeited due to non-payment of rent or breach of conditions. The procedures for forfeiture due to non-payment include serving notices, making an order for forfeiture if payment is not made, and publishing a notification. Land can also be forfeited for breach of express or implied conditions, such as failure to develop the land. The registered proprietor may be fined or instructed to remedy the breach before forfeiture is enforced. Forfeited land reverts to the State Authority free of titles and interests. Appeals against forfeiture orders can be made to the High Court within 3 months.
OH 7th District Court of Appeals Decision in Hupp v. Beck Energy CorpMarcellus Drilling News
The Seventh District Court of Appeals in Ohio overturned a lower court ruling and ruled in favor of Beck Energy Corp and XTO Energy, a major victory for the drillers and major defeat for the landowners in Monroe and Belmont counties who say their land never got drilled and they wanted to re-sign with another company.
PA Commonwealth Court Decision to Allow More Leasing/Drilling of State LandsMarcellus Drilling News
In a crushing blow to the litigious anti-drilling group Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation (PEDF), the PA Commonwealth Court ruled yesterday against the PEDF's lawsuit that attempts o stop all drilling and leasing of state-owned lands for oil and gas drilling. The court said a) such drilling is just fine and b) the decision of whether or not to allow drilling on state-owned lands (and which parcels) rests with the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
The document discusses regulations regarding the removal of rock material from various types of land in Malaysia. It outlines that the State Authority may permit extraction from state, alienated, mining, and reserved lands. Permits must be issued by the relevant land administrator and are valid only for the calendar year issued. Permits cannot be assigned or transferred upon death and holders must pay penalties for operating after expiration. Permits may require a deposit from the holder to ensure performance of obligations and land rehabilitation. Acts under a valid permit do not breach any conditions affecting the land under other laws.
This document discusses the procedure for acquiring state land under the National Land Code (NLC) of Malaysia. It summarizes a court case where an applicant paid the land revenue amount 8 months after the specified deadline in the notice. A third party challenged the alienation, arguing the approval had lapsed. However, the court held that the state authority accepting late payment implied a fresh approval. The decision showed that paying land revenue within the deadline is not mandatory under NLC, and the registration of title is the primary consideration in establishing ownership of the land.
Throughout Pennsylvania it is not uncommon to encounter gas wells that were drilled over 100 years ago. These ancient wells were drilled pursuant to oil/gas leases that often pre-date the turn of the century. In many cases, the original lessee only drilled a single well and never developed the remaining acreage under the lease. Can that single well drilled in the 1920’s now hold an entire 200 tract of land? This is a common and troubling issue for landowners throughout the Commonwealth. In a recent decision of the federal district court in Pittsburgh, the trial court recognized this hardship and allowed a lease cancellation suit filed by the landowner to move forward.
An important Dormant Minerals Right Act (DMA) case before the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court held that under the DMA: (1) a recorded oil and gas lease is a title transaction that serves as a savings event that prevents minerals from being abandoned to a surface owner; but (2) that the unrecorded expiration of an oil and gas lease is not a savings event.
On the Rocks Presentation - Lease Maintenance (February 2015)Burleson LLP
This document provides a summary of key provisions in oil and gas leases, including continuous development provisions and shut-in royalty provisions. Continuous development provisions aim to allow lessees to complete wells begun during the primary term and continue the lease without production. Shut-in royalty provisions provide for constructive production when wells are capable of producing but shut-in. Both provisions contain ambiguous terms that have been subject to litigation regarding their precise meaning and requirements. The document advises lessees to clearly define terms in their leases to avoid disputes.
LAND LAW 1 slides rights and powers of the state authority 2014xareejx
The document discusses land ownership laws in Malaysia. It explains that all land belongs to the state authority, which has sole power to dispose of and alienate land. Unregistered long possession of land does not confer ownership rights, as adverse possession is not recognized against the state or private landowners under the National Land Code. Squatters have no legal rights or cause of action regardless of duration of occupation.
The document provides information about two sites in Kentucky - the Maxey Flats Disposal Site and the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. It summarizes that the Maxey Flats site accepted low-level radioactive waste until 1977 and is undergoing remediation expected to be complete by 2003, at which point the Commonwealth of Kentucky will assume long-term stewardship responsibilities. It also summarizes that the Paducah plant has been operating since 1952 to enrich uranium, and that DOE is currently conducting cleanup activities of environmental contamination from plant operations expected to be complete by 2010, along with long-term monitoring and maintenance.
This document summarizes a presentation on emerging trends in groundwater case law. It discusses how the landmark case Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day established that landowners own the groundwater beneath their property, but that groundwater conservation districts can still regulate pumping. It notes emerging issues around what regulations constitute a "taking" requiring compensation, and the extent of a GCD's authority. The document also discusses cases related to takings claims, a GCD acting within its authority, the application of oil and gas law to severed groundwater estates, and regulation affording landowners a "fair share" of groundwater. It concludes more cases on takings will likely emerge and the extent to which oil and gas principles will apply to ground
The document summarizes significant groundwater bills from the 85th Texas Legislative session. It discusses bills relating to desired future conditions appeals, aquifer storage and recovery permitting, brackish groundwater production zones, permit renewals with groundwater conservation districts, groundwater conservation district board member liability, water well driller apprentice programs, disclosure of groundwater conservation districts during property sales, groundwater conservation district permitting decisions, Texas Water Development Board aquifer mapping, and governmental transparency legislation.
The document discusses private caveats under Malaysian land law. A private caveat is a statutory injunction entered by the Registrar upon application by a person claiming an interest in land. It preserves the status quo of the land and suspends registration until disputes over claims are resolved. A private caveat does not create or enhance the caveator's interest, but rather serves as notice of a claim and prohibits dealings with the land pending litigation. The requirements for entering, extending, and removing a private caveat are outlined according to sections of the National Land Code.
Motion to Intervene in ET Rover Pipeline Application for Eminent Domain befor...Marcellus Drilling News
A motion by Columbus, OH law firm Goldman & Braunstein to prevent ET Rover from obtaining eminent domain to install the ET Rover pipeline without first negotiating with individual landowners. Eminent domain takes all of the bargaining power away from landowners. This motion attempts to remedy that.
AN ACT TO (1) RECONSTITUTE THE MINING COMMISSION AS THE MINING AND ENERGY COMMISSION, (2) REQUIRE THE MINING AND ENERGY COMMISSION AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES TO DEVELOP A MODERN REGULATORY PROGRAM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE STATE, INCLUDING THE USE OF HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FOR THAT PURPOSE, (3) AUTHORIZE HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING, BUT PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR THESE ACTIVITIES PENDING SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION, (4) ENHANCE LANDOWNER AND PUBLIC PROTECTIONS RELATED TO HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING, AND (5) ESTABLISH THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY.
The document summarizes several cases related to easements in Malaysian land law. In the first case, Alfred Templeton & Ors v Low Yat Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor, the court granted equitable relief to the plaintiff and ordered an easement be registered based on promises made by the defendant during a land sale that led the plaintiff to believe they would have right of way access. In Datin Siti Hajar v Murugasu, the court ruled that long use of a road across the plaintiff's land did not constitute an easement since it was not expressly granted. And in EW Talalla v Ng Yee Fong & Anor and Tan Wee Choon v Ong Peck
The document discusses and compares the Deed and Torrens systems of land registration.
[1] The Deed system involved exhaustive searches of title documents back to the original Crown grant, which was complex, expensive and uncertain. [2] The Torrens system introduced in Malaysia simplified conveyancing by making registration of titles and dealings compulsory, with the register providing conclusive evidence of ownership. Key principles are the mirror and curtain principles. [3] The objectives were to provide certainty, security of title and facilitate transfer compared to the defects of the Deed system.
OH Supreme Court Decision: State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.Marcellus Drilling News
Decision by the Ohio Supreme Court in a case striking down so-called "home rule" laws in which local municipalities try to prevent shale drilling by enacting local zoning regulations. The court found that according to OH law, the state and only the state may regulate where and when drilling is done. A huge victory for both landowners and the shale industry in the Buckeye State.
An ebook published by the law firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP. Contains several blog posts they've published on the topic of oil and gas lease issues for landowners. Our favorite article: My Sister is a Fractivist and Won’t Sign an Oil and Gas Lease. What Can We Do?
Energy Bulletin - Uncertainty Rises for Energy Sector BankruptciesCohenGrigsby
In recent years, the energy sector has struggled with low commodity prices, oversupply, and logistical constraints — challenges which are poised to continue in the months ahead. These issues are putting a significant strain on the capital-intensive oil and gas sector, and a segment of the industry will labor to balance operating costs with profitability (or survival). Eventually, the financial constraints will require some operators to seek relief, either through an out-of-court restructuring, a reorganization, or liquidation under bankruptcy laws. As this wave of distressed enterprises progresses, there will be a residual impact on all facets of the infrastructure and supply chain supporting the oil and gas sector.
Friends of the Willamette has filed a lawsuit against WhyChang? alleging violations of its NPDES permit and various environmental laws. The memo analyzes WC's NPDES permit status, the scope of permit protections, and potential enforcement consequences. It finds that WC's permit remains valid, but some discharges may fall outside protections. Significant civil penalties are possible for violations, though some defenses like lack of notice may apply.
Wind_Energy_Law_2014_Amanda James _Avoiding Regulatory Missteps for Developer...Amanda James
This document discusses various regulatory considerations for wind energy projects, including:
1) Permitting regulations at the federal, state, and local levels that address environmental impacts, site plans, and other approval requirements.
2) The need to comply with local land use and zoning laws, which can restrict turbine placements. Obtaining local approval is often crucial.
3) Additional requirements like adhering to FAA guidelines on lighting and radar interference, considering impacts to historic and cultural resources, and analyzing effects on federal farm programs and contracted land.
L7 Rights to discharge and disolve contracts.pptxthắm ngọc
This document discusses various ways in which a contract can be discharged or dissolved, including:
1. Performance of obligations as agreed.
2. Agreement between the parties to alter or waive contract conditions.
3. Frustration of the contract due to an unforeseen event outside parties' control that fundamentally changes obligations.
4. Operation of law, such as bankruptcy terminating a party's contract liabilities.
It provides examples of cases where contracts were found to be frustrated due to events like destruction of the subject matter, changes in law, or non-occurrence of an event fundamental to the contract. Statutes like the Frustrated Contracts Act are also discussed.
The court affirmed the Florida Public Service Commission's determination that PW Ventures' proposed cogeneration power project was within the PSC's regulatory jurisdiction. PW Ventures planned to build a cogeneration facility on land leased from Pratt & Whitney to provide electric and thermal power under a long-term contract. The PSC ruled this made PW Ventures a public utility subject to regulation. The court agreed, holding that regulating electric production and sales contemplated granting monopolies, and the public interest required limiting competition in electric service.
Presented by Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI-USA) Research & Policy Associate James Robinson. August 8, 2013.
Contact James Robinson with any questions: james@rafiusa.org
919-542-1396 ext. 209
For more information about forced pooling and landowner rights visit: http://rafiusa.org/issues/landowner-rights-and-fracking/
The New York Court of Appeals upheld local zoning ordinances in Dryden and Middlefield that banned hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The court found that the state's Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law, which preempts local laws relating to regulating the oil and gas industries, did not preempt the towns' bans on fracking. The court relied on precedent establishing that state law only preempts local laws that regulate how activities are carried out, not where they are located. The court also found no clear legislative intent to require municipalities to allow fracking somewhere within their borders.
A copy of the lawsuit filed Sept. 15, 2011 by landowner and resident of the Township of Middlefield (Otsego County, NY) Jennifer Huntington against the township seeking to overturn Middlefield's recent ban on gas drilling. Huntington claims it violates New York State law which reserves the right to regulate oil and gas drilling in the state.
Sean Gibbs has over 20 years experience in advising parties using statutory adjudication in the construction and engineering industries. In this article he looks at the importance of the first enforcement case and what he would like to see changed to improve the access and benefits adjudication to a wider range of parties.
This summarizes a document reviewing environmental law cases from 2009-2010. It discusses three cases:
1) Fresh Meadow Food Serv., LLC v. RB 175Corp. upheld a RICO claim against a defendant who concealed underground storage tanks and contaminated soil when selling a property.
2) Wickens v. Shell Oil Co. addressed recoverable attorney fees under Indiana's Underground Storage Tank Act.
3) Evansville Greenway & Remediation Trust v. S. Ind. Gas & Elec. Co. concerned the common interest privilege and apportionment of liability under CERCLA. The court applied the privilege to communications between parties working to remediate contaminated sites. It also found CERCLA
The document summarizes trends in oil and gas claims, including differences between traditional and fracking blowouts, issues with old plugged and abandoned wells interacting with CO2 injection fields, pollution claims that interact with control of well and general liability policies, additional insured claims, and relationship issues between operators and service companies due to liability claims. It also provides case studies on specific claims and discusses final remarks and contact information from industry experts.
This document summarizes trends in oil and gas claims, including differences between traditional and fracking-induced blowouts, issues with old plugged and abandoned wells interacting with CO2 injection fields, pollution claims involving both control of well and general liability policies, additional insured claims, and relationship problems between operators and service companies due to liability claims. Key points discussed include available casing repair endorsements, court rulings on coverage, new regulations in Texas, CO2 injection processes, cement and rock factors in well integrity, and case studies on claim amounts and abandoned well liabilities.
This document is an opinion and order from a United States District Court case between Siltronic Corporation and various insurance companies including Employers Insurance Company of Wausau regarding insurance coverage and payment of defense costs for environmental claims arising from contamination at the Portland Harbor Superfund site. The court considers Siltronic's motion for partial summary judgment that Wausau has a continuing duty to defend Siltronic under its 1978-79 insurance policy and must reimburse unpaid defense costs. The court provides background on the insurance policies and contamination issues before analyzing the relevant policy provisions and ruling on the motions.
Bp settlement order_and_reasons_for_final_approval_of_bp_settlement Michael J. Evans
This order grants final approval of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement between BP and private plaintiffs resulting from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The settlement resolves economic loss and property damage claims for individuals and businesses in Gulf states and coastal areas through court-supervised programs that have already paid out over $405 million. The order describes the settlement categories, geographic scope, exclusions, lack of caps except for Seafood Compensation, and transparency of the claims framework. A fairness hearing was held on November 8, 2012 to consider final approval and objections.
The Ohio Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Ohio follows the "at the well" rule, which permits the deduction of post-production costs from landowner royalty checks, or if the state follows the "marketable product" rule, which limits the deduction of post-production costs under certain circumstances. The court ruled saying in so many words, "We're not deciding." In other words, each royalty case should be litigated individually, case-by-case, in a trial court.
Pennsylvania Senate Bill 259, introduced and sponsored by PA Sen. Gene Yaw, which requires more transparency on roytalty statements issued by drillers to allow landowners to see which expenses, taxes, etc. have been deducted from royalty payments. Normally this would be a good thing for landowners, except this bill also includes langage that would allow landowners with old (vertical-only) leases to be "forced" to allow drilling under their property for shale, weakening their negotiating position with drillers. The National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO) is opposed to this bill as passed (as of early July 2013).
The doctrine of privity of contract provides that only the parties to a contract can enforce rights or obligations under that contract. Over time, courts developed several exceptions to privity, including collateral contracts, agency relationships, and restrictive covenants that run with land. Academic debate questioned whether privity should be further modified or abolished. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 reformed English law by allowing expressly intended third party beneficiaries to directly enforce contract terms in certain circumstances.
Similar to NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection Energy (20)
The document summarizes five key facts about the recovery of US shale oil production:
1) Rig counts have increased by 90% since bottoming out in May 2016 and are up 30% year-over-year, signaling increased drilling and production capacity.
2) While decline rates remain steep, production profiles have increased substantially due to technological advances, meaning aggregate supply will be stronger.
3) Preliminary data shows that net new shale supply turned positive in December 2016 for the first time since March 2015, recovering just 7 months after rig counts increased.
4) Increased drilling activity is supported by a large stock of drilled but uncompleted wells, demonstrating the recovery and expansion of the shale sector.
5)
Quarterly legislative action update: Marcellus and Utica shale region (4Q16)Marcellus Drilling News
A quarterly update from the legal beagles at global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. A quarterly legislative action update for the second quarter of 2016 looking at previously laws acted upon, and new laws introduced, affecting the oil and gas industry in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
An update from Spectra Energy on their proposed $3 billion project to connect four existing pipeline systems to flow more Marcellus/Utica gas to New England. In short, Spectra has put the project on pause until mid-2017 while it attempts to get new customers signed.
A letter from Rover Pipeline to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requesting the agency issue the final certificate that will allow Rover to begin tree-clearing and construction of the 511-mile pipeline through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan. If the certificate is delayed beyond the end of 2016, it will delay the project an extra year due to tree-clearing restrictions (to accommodate federally-protected bats).
DOE Order Granting Elba Island LNG Right to Export to Non-FTA CountriesMarcellus Drilling News
An order issued by the U.S. Dept. of Energy that allows the Elba Island LNG export facility to export LNG to countries with no free trade agreement with the U.S. Countries like Japan and India have no FTA with our country (i.e. friendly countries)--so this is good news indeed. Although the facility would have operated by sending LNG to FTA countries, this order opens the market much wider.
A study released in December 2016 by the London School of Economics, titled "On the Comparative Advantage of U.S. Manufacturing: Evidence from the Shale Gas Revolution." While America has enough shale gas to export plenty of it, exporting it is not as economic as exporting oil due to the elaborate processes to liquefy and regassify natural gas--therefore a lot of the gas stays right here at home, making the U.S. one of (if not the) cheapest places on the planet to establish manufacturing plants, especially for manufacturers that use natural gas and NGLs (natural gas liquids). Therefore, manufacturing, especially in the petrochemical sector, is ramping back up in the U.S. For every two jobs created by fracking, another one job is created in the manufacturing sector.
Letter From 24 States Asking Trump & Congress to Withdraw the Unlawful Clean ...Marcellus Drilling News
A letter from the attorneys general from 24 of the states opposed to the Obama Clean Power Plan to President-Elect Trump, RINO Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel and RINO House Speaker Paul Ryan. The letter asks Trump to dump the CPP on Day One when he takes office, and asks Congress to adopt legislation to prevent the EPA from such an egregious overreach ever again.
Report: New U.S. Power Costs: by County, with Environmental ExternalitiesMarcellus Drilling News
Natural gas and wind are the lowest-cost technology options for new electricity generation across much of the U.S. when cost, public health impacts and environmental effects are considered. So says this new research paper released by The University of Texas at Austin. Researchers assessed multiple generation technologies including coal, natural gas, solar, wind and nuclear. Their findings are depicted in a series of maps illustrating the cost of each generation technology on a county-by-county basis throughout the U.S.
Annual report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing oil and natural gas proved reserves, in this case for 2015. These reports are issued almost a year after the period for which they report. This report shows proved reserves for natural gas dropped by 64.5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), or 16.6%. U.S. crude oil and lease condensate proved reserves also decreased--from 39.9 billion barrels to 35.2 billion barrels (down 11.8%) in 2015. Proved reserves are calculated on a number of factors, including price.
The document is a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration analyzing oil and gas production from seven regions in the U.S. It includes charts and tables showing historical and projected production levels of oil and gas from each region from 2008 to 2017, as well as metrics like the average production per rig. The regions - Bakken, Eagle Ford, Haynesville, Marcellus, Niobrara, Permian, and Utica - accounted for 92% of domestic oil production growth and all domestic natural gas production growth from 2011-2014.
Velocys is the manufacturer of gas-to-liquids (GTL) plants that convert natural gas (a hyrdocarbon) into other hydrocarbons, like diesel fuel, gasoline, and even waxes. This PowerPoint presentation lays out the Velocys plan to get the company growing. GTL plants have not (so far) taken off in the U.S. Velocys hopes to change that. They specialize in small GTL plants.
PA DEP Revised Permit for Natural Gas Compression Stations, Processing Plants...Marcellus Drilling News
In January 2016, Gov. Wolf announced the DEP would revise its current general permit (GP-5) to update the permitting requirements for sources at natural gas compression, processing, and transmission facilities. This is the revised GP-5.
PA DEP Permit for Unconventional NatGas Well Site Operations and Remote Piggi...Marcellus Drilling News
In January 2016, PA Gov. Wolf announced the Dept. of Environmental Protection would develop a general permit for sources at new or modified unconventional well sites and remote pigging stations (GP-5A). This is the proposed permit.
Onerous new regulations for the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale industry proposed by the state Dept. of Environmental Protection. The new regs will, according to the DEP, help PA reduce so-called fugitive methane emissions and some types of air pollution (VOCs). This is liberal Gov. Tom Wolf's way of addressing mythical man-made global warming.
The monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) from the U.S. Energy Information Administration for December 2016. This issue makes a couple of key points re natural gas: (1) EIA predicts that natural gas production in the U.S. for 2016 will see a healthy decline over 2015 levels--1.3 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) less in 2016. That's the first annual production decline since 2005! (2) The EIA predicts the average price for natural gas at the benchmark Henry Hub will climb from $2.49/Mcf (thousand cubic feet) in 2016 to a whopping $3.27/Mcf in 2017. Why the jump? Growing domestic natural gas consumption, along with higher pipeline exports to Mexico and liquefied natural gas exports.
This document provides an overview of the natural gas market in the Northeast United States, including New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It details statistics on gas customers, consumption, infrastructure like pipelines and storage, and production. A key point is that the development of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania has significantly increased domestic gas production in the region and reduced its reliance on other supply basins and imports.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission responded to each point raised in a draft copy of the PA Auditor General's audit of how Act 13 impact fee money, raised from Marcellus Shale drillers, gets spent by local municipalities. The PUC says it's not their job to monitor how the money gets spent, only in how much is raised and distributed.
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Act 13/Impact Fees Audit by PA Auditor...Marcellus Drilling News
A biased look at how 60% of impact fees raised from PA's shale drilling are spent, by the anti-drilling PA Auditor General. He chose to ignore an audit of 40% of the impact fees, which go to Harrisburg and disappear into the black hole of Harrisburg spending. The Auditor General claims, without basis in fact, that up to 24% of the funds are spent on items not allowed under the Act 13 law.
The final report from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection that finds, after several years of testing, no elevated levels of radiation from acid mine drainage coming from the Clyde Mine, flowing into Ten Mile Creek. Radical anti-drillers tried to smear the Marcellus industry with false claims of illegal wastewater dumping into the mine, with further claims of elevated radiation levels in the creek. After years of testing, the DEP found those allegations to be false.
FERC Order Denying Stay of Kinder Morgan's Broad Run Expansion ProjectMarcellus Drilling News
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied a request to stay the authorization of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company's Broad Run Expansion Project. The Commission found that the intervenors requesting the stay did not demonstrate they would suffer irreparable harm if the project proceeded. Specifically, the Commission determined that the environmental impacts to forest and a nearby animal rehabilitation center would be insignificant. Additionally, conditioning authorization on future permits did not improperly encroach on state authority. Therefore, justice did not require granting a stay.
Youngest c m in India- Pema Khandu BiographyVoterMood
Pema Khandu, born on August 21, 1979, is an Indian politician and the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh. He is the son of former Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Dorjee Khandu. Pema Khandu assumed office as the Chief Minister in July 2016, making him one of the youngest Chief Ministers in India at that time.
Essential Tools for Modern PR Business .pptxPragencyuk
Discover the essential tools and strategies for modern PR business success. Learn how to craft compelling news releases, leverage press release sites and news wires, stay updated with PR news, and integrate effective PR practices to enhance your brand's visibility and credibility. Elevate your PR efforts with our comprehensive guide.
13062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
केरल उच्च न्यायालय ने 11 जून, 2024 को मंडला पूजा में भाग लेने की अनुमति मांगने वाली 10 वर्षीय लड़की की रिट याचिका को खारिज कर दिया, जिसमें सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की एक बड़ी पीठ के समक्ष इस मुद्दे की लंबित प्रकृति पर जोर दिया गया। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अनिल के. नरेंद्रन और न्यायमूर्ति हरिशंकर वी. मेनन की खंडपीठ द्वारा पारित किया गया
NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection Energy
1. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 44
Walter R. Beardslee, &c., et al.,
Respondents,
v.
Inflection Energy, LLC, et al.,
Appellants.
Thomas S. West, for appellants.
Peter H. Bowman, for respondents.
PIGOTT, J.:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit certified to this Court questions relating to oil and gas
leases entered into between various New York landowners and
energy companies. The questions arise in the context of the
- 1 -
2. - 2 - No. 44
energy companies' claim that an express force majeure clause in
the subject leases was triggered by events beginning in July
2008, when then-Governor Paterson mandated formal public
environmental review to address the impact of the combined use of
high-volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. We
hold that the force majeure clause does not modify the habendum
clause and, therefore, the leases terminated at the conclusion of
their primary terms.
I.
The relevant statutory framework and background are
explained in detail in the decisions of the Federal District
Court (904 F Supp 2d 213 [NDNY 2012]) and the Second Circuit (761
F3d 221 [2d Cir 2014]).
Plaintiffs, various landowners in Tioga County, entered
into separate oil and gas leases with Victory Energy Corporation
(Victory), whereby plaintiffs leased to Victory "the rights of
drilling, producing, and otherwise operating for oil and gas and
their constituents, including the right to conduct geophysical,
seismic, and other exploratory tests" from under their property
for a nominal annual fee or, if drilling commenced, the right to
receive a royalty on gross proceeds. The majority of the leases
were executed in 2001, although leases were also signed in 2002,
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2009.1
Victory shared its leasehold
1
Most of the leases at issue were renewed for additional
five-year terms. However, any extension/renewal does not alter
- 2 -
3. - 3 - No. 44
interests with Megaenergy, Inc. In July 2010, defendant
Inflection Energy, LLC (Inflection) assumed from Megaenergy, Inc.
the operational rights and responsibilities under most of the
leases.
Each of the leases contains an identical term clause,
also known as a habendum clause,2
which establishes the primary
and definite period during which the energy companies may
exercise the drilling rights granted by the leases.
Specifically, the leases' habendum clause provides:
"It is agreed that this lease shall remain in
force for a primary term of FIVE (5) years
from the date hereof and as long thereafter
as the said land is operated by Lessee in the
production of oil or gas."
Under this provision, the interests conveyed by the leases exist
for a five-year "primary term," followed by an open secondary
term so long as the land is operated by the lessee in the
production of oil or gas.
Each lease also contains what the parties refer to as a
the analysis here. At oral argument before this Court, the
parties did not dispute that the leases were still in their
primary terms in 2008, when the alleged force majeure event
occurred.
2
Habendum clauses are typically found in standard oil and
gas leases to "establish a definite (or primary) term in which
the lessee [is] permitted to develop [] property, with an option
for an indefinite secondary term permitting the lessee to reap
the long-term value and return on the money spent developing the
property during the primary term" (Wiser v Enervest Operating,
L.L.C., 803 F Supp 2d 109, 118 [NDNY 2011] [quotation marks
omitted]).
- 3 -
4. - 4 - No. 44
"force majeure clause." Generally, a force majeure event is an
event beyond the control of the parties that prevents performance
under a contract and may excuse nonperformance (see Kel Kim Corp.
v Cent. Mkts., 70 NY2d 900, 902 [1987]). The force majeure
clause here provides:
"If and when drilling or other operations
hereunder are delayed or interrupted by lack
of water, labor or material, or by fire,
storm, flood, war, rebellion, riot, strike,
differences with workmen, or failure of
carriers to transport or furnish facilities
for transportation, or as a result of some
order, rule, regulation, requisition or
necessity of the government, or as a result
of any other cause whatsoever beyond the
control of Lessee, the time of such delay or
interruption shall not be counted against
Lessee, anything in this lease to the
contrary notwithstanding. All express or
implied covenants of this lease shall be
subject to all Federal and State laws,
Executive Orders, Rules or Regulations, and
this lease shall not be terminated, in whole
or in part, nor Lessee held liable in damages
for failure to comply therewith, if
compliance is prevented by, or if such
failure is the result of any such Law, Order,
Rule or Regulation."
On July 23, 2008, then-Governor David Paterson ordered
formal public environmental review to address the impact of
combined use of high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF)3
3
HVHF is "an unconventional drilling technology which
involves the injection of more than a million gallons of water,
sand, and chemicals at high pressure down and across into
horizontally drilled wells as far as 10,000 feet below the
surface" (Beardslee, 904 F Supp 2d at 216 n 4). "The pressurized
mixture causes the rock layer . . . to crack. . . . [and the] gas
to flow into the well" (id.; see generally Matter of Wallach v
Town of Dryden, 23 NY3d 728, 739 [2014], rearg denied 24 NY3d 981
- 4 -
5. - 5 - No. 44
(commonly known as "fracking") and horizontal drilling (2008
Directive). In particular, he directed the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to update and
supplement its 1992 generic environmental impact statement (GEIS)
on conventional oil and gas exploration (see Mem filed with New
York State Senate Bill Number 8169–A [July 21, 2008]). On
December 13, 2010, following the DEC's issuance of a draft
Supplemental GEIS (SGEIS), Governor Paterson issued Executive
Order No. 41 in which he instructed the DEC to revise the draft
SGEIS and address "comprehensively the environmental impacts
associated with [HVHF] combined with horizontal drilling" in a
final SGEIS (see Executive Order [Paterson] No. 41 [9 NYCRR
7.41]). The Governor also indicated that pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), "no [HVHF] permits
[could] be issued" by the State before "the completion of a Final
SGEIS" (id.).4
In response to these developments, Inflection
sent notices of extension to the landowners, asserting that New
York's governmental action constituted a force majeure event
under the leases, which purportedly extended the leases' terms.
On September 7, 2011, the DEC released a Revised Draft
SGEIS, and issued a press release informing the public that "[n]o
[2014]).
4
This Court recently acknowledged the existence of a
moratorium on "[HVHF] combined with horizontal drilling"
(Wallach, 23 NY3d at 740 n 1, citing Executive Order [Paterson]
No. 41 [9 NYCRR 7.41]).
- 5 -
6. - 6 - No. 44
permits for [HVHF] will be issued until the SGEIS is finalized
and [the DEC] issues the required Findings Statement."
It is undisputed that no operations have been conducted
upon the leaseholds, that the energy companies have not produced
oil and gas from the properties within the leases' primary terms,
and that no royalties have been paid to the landowners.
II.
In February 2012, after the primary term of the leases
had expired, the landowners commenced this declaratory judgment
action against Inflection, Victory, and Megaenergy (collectively,
energy companies) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York, seeking a declaration that the
leases had expired by their own terms. The energy companies
answered and counterclaimed for a declaration to the contrary,
arguing that each lease was extended by operation of the force
majeure clause. In particular, the energy companies referenced
the portion of the force majeure clause that states:
"[i]f and when drilling . . . [is] delayed or
interrupted . . . as a result of some order,
rule, regulation, requisition or necessity of
the government, or as the result of any other
cause whatsoever beyond the control of
Lessee, the time of such delay or
interruption shall not be counted against
Lessee, anything in this lease to the
contrary notwithstanding. . . ."
The energy companies averred that New York's moratorium on the
use of horizontal drilling and HVHF triggered the force majeure
clause. The landowners, insisting that no force majeure event
- 6 -
7. - 7 - No. 44
had occurred, moved for summary judgment declaring that the
leases had expired. The energy companies opposed the motion and
cross-moved for summary judgment declaring that the leases'
primary terms were extended by a force majeure event so that the
leases were still in full force and effect.
On November 15, 2012, the District Court granted
summary judgment to the landowners, declaring that all of the
leases had expired by their own terms, and entered judgment
accordingly (see 904 F Supp 2d 213). The District Court denied
the energy companies' cross motion for summary judgment and
dismissed their counterclaims holding that the force majeure
clause did not extend the leases.5
It declined to rule on
whether a force majeure event occurred, stating that even if it
did, the force majeure clause would have no effect on the
habendum clause and the lease terms because the energy companies
did not have an obligation to drill. The District Court also
concluded that Governor Paterson's 2008 Directive did not
frustrate the purpose of the leases, because the energy companies
could drill using conventional methods and that the 2008
Directive was foreseeable. The energy companies appealed.
The Second Circuit observed "that this case turns on
significant and novel issues of New York law concerning the
5
On the same day, the same court and Judge reached the
same result with regard to other New York State oil and gas
leaseholds in a case presenting similar facts (see Aukema v
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, 904 F Supp 2d 199 [NDNY 2012]).
- 7 -
8. - 8 - No. 44
interpretation of oil and gas leases, a legal field that is both
relatively undeveloped in the State and of potentially great
commercial and environmental significance to State residents and
businesses" (761 F3d 221, 224 [2d Cir 2014]). Accordingly, it
certified to this court, and we accepted, the following
questions:
(1) "Under New York law, and in the context
of an oil and gas lease, did the State's
Moratorium amount to a force majeure event?"
(2) "If so, does the force majeure clause
modify the habendum clause and extend the
primary terms of the leases?"
(id. at 232; 23 NY3d 1047 [2014]).
We answer the second certified question, which the
Second Circuit characterized as "in some respects more
fundamental" (761 F3d at 230), in the negative. The first
certified question is therefore academic and need not be
addressed.
III.
The construction and interpretation of oil and gas
leases is guided by basic principles of contract law (see Estate
of Hatch v Nyco Minerals Inc., 245 AD2d 746, 747 [3d Dept 1997]),
and the parties agree that New York law governs the leases in
dispute.
Under New York contract jurisprudence, the intent of
the parties controls and if an agreement is "complete, clear and
unambiguous on its face[, i]t must be enforced according to the
- 8 -
9. - 9 - No. 44
plain meaning of its terms" (Greenfield v Philles Records, Inc.,
98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]). As this Court has indicated on
numerous occasions, "[c]ourts may not 'by construction add or
excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby
make a new contract for the parties under the guise of
interpreting the writing'" (Riverside S. Planning Corp. v
CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., 13 NY3d 398, 404 [2009], quoting
Reiss v Financial Performance Corp., 97 NY2d 195, 199 [2001]).
Moreover, the analysis should take into account that oil and gas
leases "stand on an entirely different basis from any other
leasehold agreements" (Conkling v Krandusky, 127 App Div 761 [4th
Dept 1908], citing Eaton v Allegany Gas Co., 122 NY 416 [1890]).
Such leases are "made in the context of a highly technical
industry, which employs distinct terminology used by those in the
business" (Wiser, 803 F Supp at 117). For these reasons, an
agreement for the production of oil and gas must be construed
with reference to both the intention of the parties and the known
practices within the industry (see generally 3 Howard R. Williams
& Charles J. Meyers, Oil and Gas Law §§ 601, 603, 605 [2003 ed];
2 W.L. Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas [Perm ed 1959] at Chapters
7, 10, 11).
In light of these principles, we hold that the force
majeure clause does not modify the primary term of the habendum
clause and, therefore, does not extend the leases. The habendum
clause in the leases does not incorporate the force majeure
- 9 -
10. - 10 - No. 44
clause by reference or contain any language expressly subjecting
it to other lease terms (see Wiser, 803 F Supp at 121 ["where
. . . the language of the habendum clause clearly makes that
provision 'subject to' other provisions in the agreement . . .
the life of the lease may be subject to modification"]; see also
Sun Operating Ltd. P'ship v Holt, 984 SW2d 277, 286 [Tex Civ Ct
App 1999]). Moreover, the language in the force majeure clause
stating that "the time of such delay or interruption shall not be
counted against Lessee" does not refer to the habendum clause
with specificity. Thus, the habendum clause is not expressly
modified or enlarged by the force majeure clause.
The energy companies, however, broadly assert that
under New York law the phrase "anything in this lease to the
contrary notwithstanding" has consistently been held to mean
that, regardless of other contract terms, that clause controls.
Accordingly, they insist that the force majeure clause
necessarily has the effect of modifying the habendum clause.
As an initial matter, "under New York law, clauses
similar to the phrase '[n]otwithstanding any other provision'
trump conflicting contract terms" (Bank of New York v First
Millennium, Inc., 607 F3d 905, 917 [2d Cir 2010] [emphasis
added]; see generally BDC Finance L.L.C. v Barclays Bank PLC, __
NY3d __ 2015 NY Slip Op 01486 [Feb. 19, 2015]). Accordingly, the
language in the force majeure provision does not supersede all
other clauses in the leases, only those with which it is in
- 10 -
11. - 11 - No. 44
conflict. Based upon our analysis, because the force majeure
clause is not in conflict with the provisions of the primary term
of the habendum clause, the words "anything in this lease to the
contrary notwithstanding" alone are insufficient to compel the
conclusion that the force majeure clause modifies the primary
term, as compared to the secondary term, of the habendum clause.
Because the force majeure clause expressly refers to a
delay or interruption in drilling or production for any
enumerated reason, it follows that the clause only conflicts with
and, therefore, modifies the secondary term of the habendum
clause, in which the lessee has the obligation to operate in the
production of oil or gas, or the lease terminates. Moreover, the
second sentence in the force majeure clause, which deals
exclusively with governmental regulations, pertains only to the
energy companies' express or implied covenants -- the lessee's
obligations. As the energy companies made no express or implied
covenants applicable to the primary term (other than to pay delay
rentals, which are not at issue here), the force majeure clause
must relate to only continuous drilling/production operations
during the secondary term of the leases (see Aukema, 904 F Supp
2d at 210; see generally Eaton v Allegany Gas Co., 122 NY 416,
423 [1890]). Furthermore, this latter sentence in the force
majeure clause expressly indicates that the subject clause deals
with lease termination, not lease expiration. The corresponding
habendum clause provision is its secondary term, which also
- 11 -
12. - 12 - No. 44
addresses the conditions under which the leases would terminate,
whereas the primary term deals with lease expiration.
Thus, we interpret the "notwithstanding" language of
the force majeure clause as excusing the energy companies'
performance only during the secondary term of the habendum
clause, during which operations in the production of oil and gas
would be necessary for leases to remain viable. To read the
force majeure clause as applying to the primary term would be to
interpret the leases in a manner contrary to the plain intent of
the parties.
Our holding is consistent with out-of-state "oil"
jurisdictions, in which courts, applying similar contract
principles, have held that language identical or similar to the
force majeure clause at issue here cannot extend the primary term
set forth in the habendum clause (see Gulf Oil Corp. v Southland
Royalty Co., 496 SW2d 547, 552 [Tex 1973]; see also San Mateo
Community Coll. Dist. v Half Moon Bay Ltd. Partnership, 65 Cal
App 4th 401, 412 [Cal Ct App 1998]; Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of
America v Zimmer, 447 F Supp 66, 70 [ND Tex 1977], affd 576 F2d
106 [5th Cir 1978]; cf. Sun Operating Ltd. Partnership v Holt,
984 SW2d 277, 282-283 [Tex App 1998]). And, as observed by our
sister courts, had the energy companies intended for the habendum
clause to be subject to other provisions of the contract, they
could have expressly so indicated (see Kirker v Shell Oil Co.,
104 Cal App 2d 497, 503 [Cal Ct App, 2d App Dis, Div 1, 1951]).
- 12 -
13. - 13 - No. 44
Accordingly, the first question need not be answered as
academic, and the second certified question should be answered in
the negative.
- 13 -
14. - 14 - No. 44
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Following certification of questions by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit and acceptance of the questions
by this Court pursuant to section 500.27 of this Court's Rules of
Practice, and after hearing argument by counsel for the parties
and consideration of the briefs and record submitted, second
certified question answered in the negative and first certified
question not answered as academic. Opinion by Judge Pigott.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Read, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein
and Fahey concur.
Decided March 31, 2015
- 14 -