Past PA Biz Roundtable Pres. Wants Severance Tax to Build More Pipes
As the Pennsylvania budget deadline looms (June 30th), the Democrats and RINO Republicans are out in full force pushing, like a broken record, the dead issue of a severance tax. For the next nine days (or more, if the budget doesn’t pass on time, which is likely), we will have to hear about the Grand Canyon budget gap that exists, and how only soaking drillers (and landowners) to use THEIR money, will fix it. Johnny one tune. Every argument we’ve read always says money from a severance tax is needed to help fund the general budget. So when we spotted an opinion column that argued for the severance tax so the state can use the money to build more pipelines to areas without pipelines, so more residents can use natural gas, we thought that was kind of unique and funny. No, building more pipelines is not a good reason to impose a severance tax. It’s nothing more than yet another way to try and get one passed, and once in place, change the things it funds. In other words, it’s a lie. This particular view was offered by the former president of the Pennsylvania Business Roundtable. He’s also someone who’s “spent four decades in and around state government.” In other words, a swamp dweller. And establishment insider–the establishment in this case located in Harrisburg. So we’re not surprised that he wants a Marcellus-killing tax. It’s just dressed up in pretty platitudes…
Read More “Past PA Biz Roundtable Pres. Wants Severance Tax to Build More Pipes”
The legal beagles of top energy law firm Babst Calland recently released their seventh annual energy industry report called, “The 2017 Babst Calland Report – Upstream, Midstream and Downstream: Resurgence of the Appalachian Shale Industry; Legal and Regulatory Perspective for Producers and Midstream Operators.” This latest annual review chronicles the comeback of the Marcellus/Utica and what challenges lie ahead. In an MDN exclusive, we have the first seven pages of the 74-page report (see below), along with details on how you can request a full copy. Worth the read! Here’s an overview…
The TriState Infrastructure Council (TSIC) was founded in Pittsburgh in late 2016 to “serve a broad-based business community during the critical next few years by attracting and deploying investments in infrastructure projects in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.” With infrastructure upgrades, the region will be able to realize economic growth resulting from petrochemical manufacturing and related industries in the Appalachian basin. One of the driving forces behind TSIC is a name you are likely familiar with: Kathryn Klaber. Katie Klaber founded and until a few years ago led the Marcellus Shale Coalition. She opted to focus on her consulting practice following the MSC and is now managing the TSIC. The TSIC organization was founded with a group of A-list companies located in the region. At this week’s Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction conference in Pittsburgh, Katie unveiled an exciting new project to map infrastructure in an 82-county region throughout the Ohio River Valley. The aim is to identify missing/key/critical infrastructure components and then work to set up public-private partnerships to get those components built. The TSIC is looking at “electric transmission and distribution, pipelines, natural gas and natural gas liquid storage capacity, reliable locks and dams, rail networks, roads and bridges, water and sewer, building sites, barge loading/unloading facilities, broadband, fiber optics, and air service, among others.” And yes, the Marcellus/Utica shale is the linchpin that holds it all together–makes it all possible–and the raison d’être for the TSIC. Here’s more on the new infrastructure database, the TSIC, and how they are giving the shale industry a big assist…
Yesterday the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), the agency charged with keeping tabs on impact fee revenue from shale drillers (PA’s version of a severance tax), released the final numbers for impact fee revenues and disbursements in 2016 (see 
Each June, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), the agency charged with keeping tabs on impact fee revenue from shale drillers (PA’s version of a severance tax) releases the final numbers of impact fee revenues and disbursements. Today is the appointed day for 2016 impact fees. The PUC reports impact fees on natural gas producers in 2016 totaled $173,258,900–the lowest annual revenue generated from the fee to date (since the fee began in 2011). However, 2016 was the low point for drillers drilling new wells–the bottom of the valley in the oil and gas industry. Since mid-2016 we’ve been on an upswing in drilling new wells, which will no doubt be reflected in 2017 impact fee revenues. We have the PUC press release below, and screenshots for many of the pretty color pie charts showing topline numbers. What was the #1 county receiving impact fee revenue (meaning the #1 county drilled) in 2016? Washington County. The driller paying the most in impact fees in 2016? Range Resources. The municipality receiving the most revenue from impact fees? Interestingly, that would be Cummings Township–in Lycoming County. Here’s the 411 on impact fees (i.e. taxes) raised and spent in PA for 2016…
An article in the left-leaning Harrisburg Patriot-News has this incendiary opening: “Is it ‘abnormally dangerous’ to drill and frack for oil under a massive oil refinery, particularly if that well is bored beneath a tank filled with 3.6 million gallons of gasoline? A decision issued by a divided Commonwealth Court panel on Monday will give a Pennsylvania community a chance to find out.” In a court decision filed on Monday, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania will allow a driller to drill and frack a well that is close to (but not directly underneath) the above-ground 3.6 million gallon petroleum tank. At first blush, especially when reading an opening like the one in the Patriot-News story, the average reader would think such a plan is stark raving mad. But when you dig into the details, a far different story emerges. As usual, mainstream media misrepresents many of the facts. We’re here to sort it out for you…
We’re going to take a stab at this, and we are not confident we will get it 100% right. With that as a warning, we recently reported that a case brought by landowners in northeastern PA against Chesapeake Energy over unwarranted royalty deductions suffered a bit of a setback (see 
In December 2016, the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) unveiled new regulations to clamp down on methane emissions and other other air pollution that allegedly comes from shale drilling sites (see 
Just a quick reminder that the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection is conducting four public hearings, beginning today and running through Wednesday, for the Williams Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline project. If there is any way you can make it to one of the hearings to show your support for the project, do it! Below is the DEP announcement sharing the locations for the hearings. Today are two hearings, both from 6-9p, one in Tunkhannock and the other in Lancaster. Tomorrow the hearing is in Bloomsburg, and Wednesday in Annville. Come out to support this critical pipeline project…
PennEast Pipeline has just released a list of 11 non-profit organizations receiving grants of “up to” $5,000 from the pipeline company. It’s not the first time (
Since the beginning of this year, MDN has warned our readers about a push by the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) to revise methane emissions rules, something called Air Quality General Permit 5 (GP-5), and Air Quality General Permit 5A (GP-5A). According to the DEP, proposed GP-5 and GP-5A, “establish updated Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements for the industry regarding air emission limits, source testing, leak detection and repair, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for the applicable air pollution sources.” The Marcellus industry perceives the changes to be a threat to the future of the industry in the state (see 
It seems the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) has some air cover in its war against the Marcellus Shale industry (see Unmasking PA DEP’s War on Shale via Methane Regulations). The DEP has support from 10 PA legislators who have become fractivist tools by all using the same form letter/template in writing to the DEP. It’s really kind of funny. Below we have a copy of all ten letters so you can see for yourself. The letter signers (since they didn’t actually write them) are from eight PA House Democrats (Dom Costa, Dan Frankel, Robert Freeman, Patty Kim, Stephen Kinsey, Daniel Miller, Greg Vitali, Jake Wheatley), and from two PA Senate Democrats (Art Haywood, Sharif Street). Each form letter starts the same way: “It is critical that as a Commonwealth we continue our efforts to protect our residents and the environment from emissions associated with natural gas drilling.” And the drivel goes on from there. Oh, each one varies a word here or there, but make no mistake, this is form letter fractivism, plain and simple. Look for yourself at the Attack of the Clones…
A somewhat obscure court case in Pennsylvania has potentially big implications for drillers who also own pipeline subsidiaries. In Lycoming County, PA, Seneca Resources (subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Company) drilled a series of wells on a pad called Well Pad E. Another NFG subsidiary, NFG Midstream, connected gathering lines to Well Pad E. NFG Midstream operates a compressor station to push the gas through the pipeline system. Both the well pad and the pipeline/compressor station are subject to air emissions regulations by the state Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP). Each subsidiary on its own–the well pad, and the compressor station–don’t produce enough emissions to trip a costly upgrade in technology. However, if you combine both together into a single “source,” the two together do cross the threshold and would cost NFG big bucks in emissions technology to comply. The DEP lumped both together and told NFG to upgrade their emissions technology. Thing is, if another company owned the pipeline system, say Williams, the DEP would not have tried combining the two into a single source. So NGF appealed the DEP decision to the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB), a quasi-court set up to hear appeals of DEP decisions. The EHB found in favor of the DEP, so NFG appealed it again, this time to PA Commonwealth Court. Last week the court overturned the DEP decision and said just because two subsidiaries have the same parent, you can’t just lump them together as a single source for air emissions regulations… 
What if there was a small device, about the size of a paperback novel, that could sniff the air and detect fugitive methane, escaping into the atmosphere? And what if that small device was operated with rechargeable batteries, and the batteries recharged every day using solar energy? And what if that device could also then transmit data about the air quality via the internet to servers back at HQ? And what if it could operate remotely, like at an abandoned well site? Dream no more. Such a device exists. We first heard about PixController’s Optical Methane Emissions Detection System (OMEDS) when it won a $25,000 prize from the 2015 Shale Gas Innovation Contest (see 
The radical Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council (CAC) has scored a very small, but notable, victory in it’s battle to block Sunoco Logistic Partners’ from building the Mariner East 2 Pipeline project. Last Thursday a judge with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas allowed a case filed by CAC to proceed. The case claims that Sunoco cannot use eminent domain powers granted by the State of Pennsylvania to force its way through properties where the landowner refuses to cooperate, because (CAC claims) the pipeline is technically not an intrastate pipeline (only located in PA), but is instead an interstate pipeline (crossing the border into Ohio). The judge said the case has enough merit that it can go to trial. We call it a small victory because Common Pleas court is the lowest trial court in the state. There are several layers higher where appealed cases are decided. This is more of a statement than a serious threat. But let’s play “what if.” What if CAC wins, and on appeal, wins again?…