PA Court Decision: Leases Don’t Go on Pause When Landowners Sue
Put on your hip boots, we have some deep waters to wade through with respect to an important court decision in Pennsylvania that affects landowners and drillers. Last October MDN told you about an important lawsuit that went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, a case called Harrison v Cabot Oil & Gas (see Important Landowner/Driller Case Heads to PA Supreme Court). In brief, Susquehanna County, PA landowners Wayne and Mary Harrison signed a lease with Cabot Oil & Gas for $100 per acre and 12.5% royalties in 2010. Learning that others in their area got better deals and feeling they were not only hoodwinked but pressured into signing, they sued Cabot halfway through the lease (before any drilling was done) to dissolve the lease. Ultimately that lawsuit was decided in favor of Cabot. But by the time the lawsuit was done and dusted, the original 5-year term had expired without Cabot drilling. The Harrisons claimed since Cabot hadn’t drilled, the lease is now over with. Cabot said the lease went on “pause” when the Harrison’s sued–you can’t very well drill with an active lawsuit. This “lease on pause” case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court in PA, and in February the Supreme Court ruled that just because there is ongoing litigation, Cabot didn’t have the presumption that the lease was paused (see Cabot O&G Loses PA Supreme Court Case to Extend Lease). That is, Cabot lost the case. But it was referred back to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for more work before a final final ruling. We now have that final final ruling…
Read More “PA Court Decision: Leases Don’t Go on Pause When Landowners Sue”
Time, once again, to haul out the tea leaves to see if there’s anything we can divine from an announcement yesterday by Shell that they’ve made a “final investment decision” (or FID) to move forward with a multi-billion dollar project to build a new deep-water offshore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. What in the world does that have to do with the Marcellus/Utica? Good question! Let us read the tea leaves and connect some dots for you…
A day after issuing the final nail in the coffin of fracking in NY (see 
Let the lawsuits begin! Yesterday the anti-drilling, anti-fossil fuel head of the New York Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Joe Martens, did his master’s bidding (his master being Lord Andrew Cuomo, Earl of the Hamptons) by imposing an official, TEMPORARY (not permanent) ban on hydraulic fracturing in the Empire State. The document issued yesterday by Martens is called a Findings Statement (full copy below) and it provides the DEC’s official rationale for the action they are taking in not granting permits for high volume fracking in the state. News coverage is blaring the trumpets that New York has “banned” fracking. Well, yes, in a sense that’s true. But the implication is that it’s a permanent ban–which is not true. Far from it. Martens uses profoundly weak arguments in the Findings Statement to justify his political action. One of his central arguments is what fracking “may” do to water supplies. A few weeks ago the federal EPA, after four years of intense study, found fracking is perfectly safe for water supplies (see