Armstrong County | Ascent Resources | Bradford County | Chesapeake Energy | Columbiana County | Elk County | Energy Companies | EQT Corp | Equinor/Statoil | Greene County (PA) | Harrison County | Hilcorp Energy | Monroe County | Ohio | PennEnergy Resources | Pennsylvania | Seneca Resources | Washington County | Weekly Permits
20 New Shale Well Permits Issued for PA-OH-WV May 1-7
New shale permits issued for May 1-7 in the Marcellus/Utica rose slightly from the prior week. There were 20 new permits issued last week, up from 18 in the prior week. Last week’s tally included 15 new permits for Pennsylvania, 5 new permits for Ohio, and no new permits in West Virginia. Last week the top receiver of new permits was PennEnergy Resources, with 5 permits issued in Armstrong County, PA. Chesapeake Energy was second-highest, with 4 permits issued in Bradford County, PA.
Read More “20 New Shale Well Permits Issued for PA-OH-WV May 1-7”
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 So far, with the help of anti-fossil fuel groups pressuring the DEP, PennEnergy hasn’t withdrawn a single 8-ounce cup of water from the creek.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 
PennEnergy Resources recently reapplied (for a second time) for a permit to draw water from Big Sewickley Creek–but this time the request is cut in half, to just 1.5 million gallons of water a day (see 
PennEnergy Resources recently reapplied (for a second time) for a permit to draw water from Big Sewickley Creek–but this time the request is cut in half, to just 1.5 million gallons of water a day (see