23 New Shale Well Permits Issued for PA-OH-WV Sep 25 – Oct 1
New shale permits issued for Sep 25 – Oct 1 in the Marcellus/Utica were up a few ticks from the previous week. There were 23 new permits issued last week, up from 21 permits issued two weeks ago. Last week’s permit tally included 10 new permits in Pennsylvania, no new permits in Ohio, and a surprising 13 new permits in West Virginia. Two companies tied for top permittee, one you know, one you may not know. Olympus Energy received 5 permits to drill in Westmoreland County, PA. Consol Mining Company received 5 permits to drill in Monongalia County, WV. Consol used to own CNX Resources before spinning off CNX into its own company. Consol concentrates on coal mining. We were surprised to see Consol wandering back into shale drilling.
Read More “23 New Shale Well Permits Issued for PA-OH-WV Sep 25 – Oct 1”
This is a cautionary tale of choosing your joint venture partner carefully. The Pennsylvania Superior Court threw out a $2.4 million arbitration award against Marcellus driller PennEnergy in a business dispute in a precedential ruling last week. The Superior Court judges overruled an award by an arbitrator. PennEnergy maintained the case should never have been in arbitration in the first place. The intended recipient of the award, MDS Energy, says the Superiors weren’t so superior after all and got it wrong. The case is complicated…
The Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) continues its delay, deny, and defend strategy with a PennEnergy Resources to draw water from Big Sewickley Creek for use in fracking operations. More than two years ago PennEnergy requested permission to draw water from the creek. So far, with the help of anti-fossil fuel groups pressuring the DEP, PennEnergy hasn’t withdrawn a single 8-ounce cup of water from the creek.
On February 15, 2023, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed to hear the case Dressler Family, LP v. PennEnergy Resources, LLC, a case addressing the question of whether Pennsylvania is an “at-the-well” jurisdiction, or a “first-marketable product” jurisdiction. The case may have profound implications for Pennsylvania landowners and drillers. The issue in this case revolves around whether or not a driller is allowed to deduct expenses from royalty payments for transporting and cleaning up natural gas between the well and the point of sale. Can a driller claim post-production deductions even if there are clauses that prohibit them?
A court case decided in late April in Pennsylvania Superior Court appears (to us) to have significant ramifications for landowners and drillers with respect to deducting post-production expenses. The case is Dressler Family, LP v. PennEnergy Resources, LLC (copy of the decision below), and it addresses “market enhancement” royalty clauses found in many PA leases. Market enhancement clauses typically prohibit the deduction of post-production costs that are incurred when transforming gas into a marketable form. Some drillers ignore such clauses and deduct all “post-production costs” from the landowner’s royalty based on the drillers’ incorrect assumption that gas is “marketable” at the wellhead. This case and decision helped clear up definitions of what is and is not marketable gas.
PennEnergy Resources LLC, which according to the Pittsburgh Business Times is the 11th largest shale driller in Pennsylvania (with 405 active shale wells), achieved responsibly sourced natural gas certification from Project Canary on nearly all of its wells in January of this year (see