Senate Bill 257 was introduced in the Ohio General Assembly on December 30, 2015. The Bill, introduced by Senators Bill Seitz and Michael Skindell and co-sponsored by Senator John Eklund, would revise current Ohio Revised Code Section 5301.07. The current version of Section 5301.07 provides that certain defects in recorded real property instruments, such as a defective acknowledgement or improper witnessing, are cured and the instrument is deemed to be valid and enforceable after 21 years after the instrument was recorded. Prior to 21 years, a challenge can be made to the enforceability of the instrument based on such defects. Under the proposed revisions in Senate Bill 257, there is a rebuttable presumption that the defective instrument which is signed and acknowledged by a person owning an interest in real property conveys or otherwise affects the interest of such person and is valid, enforceable and effective as if legally made without any defects. Such instrument shall also provide constructive notice to all third parties of the instrument, notwithstanding any defect. The presumption can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of fraud, undue influence, duress, forgery, incompetency or incapacity. In addition, the time period after which such defects are cured is lessened from 21 years to 4. The changes proposed by the Bill also include an expansion of the type of defects which are covered by Section 5301.07. Under Senate Bill 257, the Section will apply to several specified defects, but is not limited to the defects listed, arguably expanding the application of the Code Section to any defect in a real property instrument. The Bill would also make the Code Section applicable to all “real property instruments,” which include deeds and leases. Therefore, if Senate Bill 257 is passed into law, litigation is likely to arise as to the section’s applicability to and effect on oil and gas leases.
The Ohio Supreme Court definitively decided a case that at one time threatened the validity of thousands of Ohio oil and gas leases. As previously reported in April of 2014, the Seventh District Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the Monroe County trial court in Hupp v. Beck Energy Corp., which originally held that a standard oil and gas lease form was void against public policy because it allowed a lease to be held in perpetuity. In January of 2015, the case was accepted for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio which issued a decision this morning affirming the District Court’s ruling. The Court held that the leases were not void against public policy and could not held in perpetuity because (i) delay rentals could only be used to maintain the leases during their stated primary term; (ii) the phrase “capable of being produced,” as used in the lease referred to the potential for production from a well drilled on the leased lands rather than the lands themselves; and (iii) that production “in the judgment of the Lessee” also applied to production from an existing well and not possible production from the leased lands. The Court also declined to read an implied covenant of reasonable development into the leases as they required development to commence within a certain period and contained specific language disclaiming implied covenants.
On January 19, 2016, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced a sweeping new regulatory strategy for reducing methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the Commonwealth. Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is considered by federal and state agencies to be a potent greenhouse gas which contributes to climate change. Governor Wolf stated that Pennsylvania, as the nation’s second-largest producer of natural gas, is “uniquely positioned to be a national leader in addressing climate change.”
The Pennsylvania methane reduction strategy is expected to result in significant changes to the air permitting and regulatory regime that currently applies to oil and natural gas industry sources. For more information, read our Administrative Watch.
On January 14, 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) published in the Federal Register the Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat. USFWS issues such rules pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Federal Endangered Species Act in order to promulgate regulations that are tailored to the conservation needs of specific threatened or endangered species. The final 4(d) rule issued by USFWS for the Northern Long-Eared Bat prohibits the incidental take of the species in certain circumstances, including incidental takes resulting from tree cutting activities that: (1) occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum; or (2) result from the cutting or destruction of “known occupied maternity roost trees,” or any other trees within a 150-foot radius of the maternity roost tree during pup season (June 1 through July 31). The final rule replaces the Interim 4(d) Rule issued by USFWS on April 2, 2015.
As previously reported, in November 2014, the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas granted the condemnation of a temporary construction easement to UGI Penn Natural Gas, Inc., a public utility. As a result, UGI was allowed to use the easement to park and store vehicles, equipment and materials related to the construction and maintenance of a pipeline which is to provide gas service to the Moxie/Panda Electric Generation Plant. Law360 reported that the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently issued a pair of opinions upholding the decision of the trial court. CourtListener recently posted a copy of the opinions. Among other findings concerning the timeliness of the landowners’ claims, the Commonwealth Court concluded that: (1) a pipeline meant to supply a power plant could constitute a public utility service; and (2) the scope of UGI’s taking was not greater than necessary to acquire the property rights in connection with the easement. In short, the court determined that the landowners’ challenges were meritless.
Last week, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that OSHA may publish its final rule on occupational exposure to crystalline silica as soon as February 2016. Safety + Health Magazine further reports that OSHA has sent a draft of its final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), one of the final steps prior to the publication of a final rule. The proposed rule was under OMB review for nearly two-and-a-half years. OSHA’s proposed rule would set a permissible exposure limit of 50 micrograms of respirable crystalline silica per cubic meter of air, reducing the current limit for general industry in half, and set a permissible exposure limit of 250 micrograms for construction sites and shipyards. In addition, the rule also would require engineering controls to reduce exposure, air monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. The content of the final rule is not known, but may reflect changes in response to more than 2000 public comments received on the proposed rule.
As reported by Law360, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will allow argument after the January decision by the Commonwealth Court in Pa. Envtl. Def. Found. v. Commonwealth, 108 A.3d 140, 45 ELR 20006, in order to determine how judges should approach government actions challenged under the Environmental Rights Amendment (Article I, Section 27) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Court said that it would consider “the proper standards for judicial review of government actions and legislation challenged under the Environmental Rights Amendment” and, specifically, the constitutionality of a pair of fiscal code amendments that gave the Pennsylvania Legislature control over revenue streams generated from the leasing of state land for oil and gas drilling. In January, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the Environmental Rights Amendment did not place fundamental restrictions on what the Commonwealth can do with revenues generated from public lands.
Babst Calland represents an oil and gas operator in Lycoming County, PA, where a recent court order requires an objector to a well pad to post a $5.69 million bond in order to move forward with a land use appeal. The basic facts of the case are described below. Inflection Energy (PA) LLC (Inflection) is an oil and gas operator that received conditional use approval for a well site in Loyalsock Township’s Agricultural Rural (A-R) zoning district. An objector appealed that approval to the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County. The appeal contained no allegations that Inflection failed to meet any of the objective requirements of the Loyalsock Township Zoning Ordinance. In response to that appeal, Inflection filed a petition for bond with the Court alleging that the primary purpose of the appeal was for delay, that the appeal was frivolous on the merits, and that the objector should post a bond to compensate Inflection for that delay if the objector chooses to move forward with the appeal. At the hearing before Senior Judge Brendan J. Vanston, Inflection presented as witnesses two Inflection employees who testified that the objector had stated that the appeal was brought only to delay the development of the well pad. On November 6, 2015, Sr. Judge Vanston entered an Order of Court finding that the appeal was frivolous and that the objector shall post a bond with the Court in the amount of $5.69 million by December 4, 2015 in order to proceed with the appeal.
In Chesapeake Exploration v. Buell, the Ohio Supreme Court held that oil and gas leases constitute “title transactions” under Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act (“DMA”). Under the DMA a “title transaction” constitutes a saving event to preclude severed mineral rights from being deemed abandoned and reunited with rights to the corresponding surface property. Of critical importance is whether an oil and gas lease constitutes a “title transaction” under the law. While the DMA defines the term “title transaction” it did not state whether an oil and gas lease constitutes a title transaction. The Court concluded that a “title transaction” is any transaction affecting title to any interest in land and that oil and gas leases affected title to land.
On October 21, 2015, Judge Richard McCormick, President Judge of the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, issued a decision and order upholding the validity of Allegheny Township’s zoning ordinance, which permits oil and gas well development in the Township’s R2 Agricultural/Residential Zoning District. The decision in Frederick v. Allegheny Township Zoning Hearing Board, No. 1898 of 2015 (Com. Pl. Westmoreland Co. Oct. 21, 2015), affirms a previous decision of the Township’s Zoning Hearing Board. Babst Calland represented CNX Gas Company LLC (CNX), an intervenor in the case, before both the Common Pleas Court and the Zoning Hearing Board.
CNX applied for and received a zoning compliance permit to develop an unconventional gas well pad in the Township’s R2 District, in which oil and gas well development is permitted as a use by right. Neighboring property owners Dolores Frederick, Beverly Taylor, and Patricia Hagaman appealed to the Zoning Hearing Board, challenging both the issuance of the permit and the validity of the Township’s zoning ordinance, alleging that permitting oil and gas well development in the R2 District violated the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s plurality decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Following several nights of hearings and oral argument, the Zoning Hearing Board ruled that the zoning ordinance was valid and upheld the issuance of the zoning compliance permit. Objectors then appealed to Common Pleas Court.
Since the Robinson decision, zoning ordinances authorizing oil and gas development have been challenged in several municipalities, with objectors essentially arguing that those ordinances are invalid because they are not strict enough. In most of these cases, the objectors have asserted that the zoning ordinance violated the Pennsylvania Environmental Rights Amendment (as interpreted by the Robinson plurality) because it permitted oil and gas development, a use they characterize as “industrial”, in agricultural, residential and other non-industrial districts. To date, all of those challenges have been rejected by local zoning hearing boards, although several of those decisions have been appealed to Common Pleas Court. Frederick is significant in that it is the first case in which a Court has addressed a Robinson based ordinance validity challenge. This case is precedential in Westmoreland County and is instructive to Courts in the other counties of the Commonwealth.
In Frederick, Judge McCormick first observed that Robinson was not binding precedent because it was only a plurality decision. The Court also pointed out that that Robinson did not address the constitutionality of a local ordinance, but instead involved a statute of statewide application (Act 13) that was invalidated because it interfered with the right of municipalities to make local zoning determinations. In any event, the Court went on to conclude that the Allegheny Township zoning ordinance was consistent with the Robinson plurality. Significantly, citing the extensive record developed before the Zoning Hearing Board, Judge McCormick expressly rejected the objectors’ contention that the zoning ordinance’s authorization of oil and gas uses “is inconsistent with the agricultural and residential character of the Township.” That record established that (1) there was a long history of oil and gas development in the Township, including a number of wells and a pipeline in close proximity of the objectors’ properties, (2) in the R2 District approximately 75% of the land mass is leased to oil and gas operators, (3) having the well pad on his property enabled the surface owner to continue actively farming his property instead of developing it for a residential subdivision, and (4) permitting oil and gas operations in the R2 District enhances the Township’s ability to maintain its rural character. The Court also cited to expert testimony which concluded that oil and gas operations have safely coexisted within rural communities throughout the Commonwealth.
Judge McCormick also rejected several of the objectors’ related arguments. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Township zoning ordinance did not constitute illegal “spot” zoning and did not violate sections 604 and 605 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code. In so concluding, the Court stated that the Township’s “legislative body sought to further the general welfare of its citizens by permitting them to benefit economically from oil and gas resources and royalites, and enabling them to retain the agricultural use and rural setting of their land.” Finally, the Court found that the authorization of oil and gas development did not violate the community development objectives of the Township zoning ordinance.
According to the Washington Observer-Reporter, a formal application for the Mountain Valley Pipeline was filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) last week. The pipeline will extend 301 miles and connect the shale gas fields of northwestern West Virginia with Pittsylvania in western Virginia. FERC has acknowledged receipt of the pipeline application and will soon set a 30-day public comment period.
On October 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania invalidated several provisions of a Grant Township, Indiana County, Pennsylvania local ordinance that was intended to prevent an oil and gas operator from operating an injection well that had been permitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In Pennsylvania General Energy Company, L.L.C. v. Grant Township, C.A. No. 14-209, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139921 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2015), Pennsylvania General Energy Company, L.L.C. challenged the constitutionality, validity and enforceability of the Grant Township ordinance that sought to establish a self-described Community Bill of Rights Ordinance. For additional information, read our recent Administrative Watch.
On August 26, 2015, seven environmental groups sent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a Notice of Intent to Sue the agency in an attempt to force the agency to develop tailored rules for oil and gas wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D solid waste program. The groups argued that the agency has not within the statutorily required three-year timeframe (1) reviewed and, where necessary, revised RCRA’s Subtitle D solid waste regulations for oil and gas wastes, and (2) reviewed and/or revised its guidelines for state solid waste management plans for oil and gas wastes. For additional information, read our recent Administrative Watch.
As reported by Oil and Gas Investor, Rice Midstream Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of Rice Energy Inc., and Gulfport Energy Corporation have teamed up to build a pipeline gathering and water line system in Ohio’s Utica Shale. Over the next six years, the companies plan to spend a combined $640 million on 165 miles of pipeline that will connect Gulfport’s Utica shale wells in Belmont and Monroe Counties to interstate pipelines. Speaking of the joint venture, Rice’s CEO, Daniel J. Rice IV, stated: “This joint venture will be one of the premier midstream systems in the prolific dry gas core of the Utica…” Gulfport will dedicate about 77,000 leasehold acres and an existing 11-mile pipeline to the joint venture, and Rice will be responsible for constructing and operating the assets. The parties have further agreed that Rice will own 75% of the joint venture and Gulfport will own the remaining 25%. Each partner will be responsible for its proportionate share of costs.
The Medina County Court of Common Pleas issued a decision allowing surveys to be completed on tracts of land along the proposed NEXUS pipeline route. In Nexus Gas Transmission, LLC v. Houston, the Court ruled that the plain language of Chapter 163 of the Ohio Revised Code provides a right to access private property for the purpose of taking surveys for the pipeline project. The ruling will allow the NEXUS pipeline owners to move ahead with obtaining approval for the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.