Dela. Riverkeeper Loses Another Court Case Against Marcellus Pipe
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit slapped down THE Delaware Riverkeeper in yet another crushing defeat for the virulent anti-fossil fuel organization (and mouthpiece for the William Penn Foundation, its main funder). Even though Williams’ Transco Leidy Southeast expansion project went online some 18 months ago, Riverkeeper sued the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) some 14 months ago over its approval of the project (see Dela. Riverkeeper Sues FERC Again – Over Leidy Pipeline Expansion). Leidy Southeast was/is 30 miles of additional pipeline segments laid next to existing pipe, called loops, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, along with upgrades at several compressor stations. The project bumped up the capacity of the mighty Transco pipeline by an extra 525,000 dekatherms of natural gas per day–enough natural gas to serve 2 million homes. The project means more Marcellus gas now flows south to new markets. Riverkeeper claimed FERC should not have approved the project until PA had issued federal 401 stream crossing permits under the Clean Water Act. It was a “procedural” objection. That is, Riverkeeper claimed FERC did things out of order and should be, we don’t know, shut down? Punished? Flogged? Prevented from doing it ever again? Riverkeeper also went after PA and NJ after they issued the 401 certificates, saying they shouldn’t have. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals (in Philadelphia) rejected that argument last August (see Court Rejects Dela. Riverkeeper Case Against PA DEP Pipe Approval). The new news is that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has now rejected Riverkeeper’s case against FERC. The justices said FERC is free to approve projects prior to states issuing 401 certificates because a project approval still doesn’t mean the project will get built–unless the states DO issue those 401 certificates. It all sounds rather complicated to follow. The short version is this: Delaware Riverkeeper lost yet another court case against a pipeline project…
Read More “Dela. Riverkeeper Loses Another Court Case Against Marcellus Pipe”

In December 2015 MDN told you about EQT’s application to drill a single shale well in Jefferson Hills (Allegheny County), PA (see
There’s a reason hospitals and court rooms are frequently the settings for soap operas on TV–there’s always so much drama surrounding medicine and the law–the latter of which is our focus today. In January MDN reported what seemed like the final chapter in a long, drawn-out case between Marcellus driller EQT and the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP). In October 2014, the DEP fined EQT a whopping $4.53 million for a leaky wastewater impoundment in Tioga County, PA (see
Wikipedia: “The Iron Curtain was the name for the boundary dividing Europe into two separate areas from the end of World War II in 1945 until the end of the Cold War in 1991. A term symbolizing the efforts by the Soviet Union to block itself and its satellite states from open contact with the West and non-Soviet-controlled areas. On the east side of the Iron Curtain were the countries that were connected to or influenced by the Soviet Union.” There is an “economic Iron Curtain” in Wayne County, PA–a curtain imposed by the Delaware River Basin Commission, or DRBC (equivalent to the Soviet Union in our metaphor). The DRBC refuses to allow shale well drilling and fracking in the Delaware River Basin, while next door in the Susquehanna River Basin such activity has been going great guns for years. As we previously reported, one brave landowner in Wayne County is fighting, in court, to rip down the DRBC Iron Curtain (see
You may recall our story about the daughter of a Huntingdon County, PA landowner, radicalized by Big Green groups (as evidenced by her association with well known protesters previously arrested), who took to a tree on her mom’s property in order to illegally stop crews working on tree clearing for the Mariner East 2 pipeline (see
A group of landowners in Ohio calling themselves the Coalition to Reroute Nexus (CORN), whom we affectionately call CORNballs, have filed a lawsuit in court against the NEXUS pipeline project. Not to actually reroute NEXUS, but to kill it. To stop it. The landowners are asking a federal court to block the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) from allowing the project to proceed–which of course is not going to happen–and to legally bar the NEXUS Gas Transmission project from building the pipeline. Which has been the aim of the CORNballs from the beginning–contrary to the party line that they just want it rerouted around them. The CORNballs seem to be in league with antis in the City of Green, OH, who recently voted to give $100,000 of taxpayer money to high-priced Cleveland lawyers to try and stop NEXUS (see
As we reported last week, six anti-pipeline residents living near where the Mariner East 2 pipeline will pass asked the Middletown (Delaware County, PA) town council to reject the path of the pipeline near their property because it would, supposedly, pass closer than town code allows. At a meeting earlier in the week, town council told the residents they’re out of luck–the town will not pursue any action to block Mariner East 2. Period. The residents, amped up and agitated by Big Green groups, was rumored to be considering a lawsuit against the pipeline to force it to conform with Middletown’s ordinance. It’s no longer a rumor. The amped up antis, spurred on and using lawyers from said Big Green groups, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Common Pleas on Friday…
For years we’ve followed the story of Range Resources and their (former) wastewater impoundments in Washington County, PA. The PA Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) fined Range a whopping $4.15 million for violations in September 2014 (see
Yesterday the five justices of the West Virginia Supreme Court reheard a case involving post-production deductions from royalty payments. Last week we reported that the court *might* rehear the case this week–if they didn’t grant a late-breaking motion to dismiss the rehearing (see 
More twists and turns to report with respect to an issue we previously reported with the potential to impact every mineral rights owner and driller in West Virginia. In December MDN reported on the huge West Virginia Supreme Court decision against driller EQT that disallows EQT from deducting post-production expenses from royalty checks, even with signed contracts in place (see
As previously reported, liberal Pennsylvania House of Representatives Democrat Pam Synder has now introduced a bill (HB 1283, copy below) to “clear up” what the state Public Utility Commission (PUC) is a loophole in the Act 13 law that may allow some drillers to avoid paying impact fees (i.e. drilling taxes) on some Marcellus Shale wells (see
For the past couple of years MDN has covered the issue of low and no royalties for landowners in Pennsylvania and other states because of the low commodity price for natural gas–and because drillers are deducting post-production expenses. The problem, from the landowner’s perspective, is that gas is still getting pumped–and they aren’t getting anything in royalties. Who would sign up for that?! The problem, from the driller’s perspective, is that they’ve spent big bucks to drill the well and even if they have to sell the gas at a loss, at least they’re getting some revenue through the door–hoping to hang on until prices go higher again. It is a conundrum. Last month the Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO) held their annual meeting and convention in State College, PA. A number of interesting bits of information came out of that meeting. One interesting tidbit: A Houston lawyer told attendees that he is now using the strategy of telling drillers if they keep sending royalty statements with no checks (i.e. statements showing the driller is not making a profit)–they have 30 days to terminate their lease with those landowners. Some leases (not all) state that if a well quits producing profitable quantities of gas, the lease is officially ended. While in some respects the lawyer’s innovative interpretation of o&g contracts may be an empty threat, the strategy does appear to be getting results. Another tidbit: There is a concern that drillers may try to deduct losses today from profits in the future–from a landowner’s royalty check. What can landowners do to guard against it?…