DEP Appeals $4.5M Wastewater Leak Fine Against EQT to Supremes
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 PA DEP Levies Biggest Fine Ever, $4.5M Against EQT). While EQT did not say there wasn’t a problem with leaks at the site, they did say the way the DEP calculated the fine is unreasonable and arbitrary. In fact, EQT says the DEP levied the fine and took EQT to court because a few weeks prior EQT had sued the DEP over a different matter–that is, sour grapes. EQT appealed the fine and the case all the way to the PA Supreme Court. In December 2015, the high court handed EQT a “procedural victory” by saying EQT has a point about the manner in which the DEP is calculating the fine (see PA Supreme Court Gives EQT “Procedural Victory” in $4.5M Fine Case). The Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court, PA Commonwealth Court, for follow up work, and in January 2017, a three-judge panel ruled that the method the DEP currently uses to assess fines–by how many days pollution lingers, instead of by how many days the initial release of pollution lasted–is not legal nor common sense (see EQT Wins Court Case Against PA DEP re $4.5M Wastewater Leak Fine). The judges said such a method in fining, “would result in potentially limitless continuing violations.” Under the old way of calculating fines, the DEP was considering upping the fine on EQT to an insane $157 million. Calculating it under the new way will mean a fine of around $120,000. We thought with that ruling it was all done and dusted. Not so. The soap opera continued when the DEP appealed the Commonwealth Court panel’s ruling back up to the PA Supreme Court where the Supremes will consider it all over again. When you read the “friend of the court” brief just filed by those supporting the DEP in their case, it’s a Who’s Who of Big Green organizations and virulent anti-drillers–which tells you all you need to know about which side is in the right in the case of EQT v DEP… Read More “DEP Appeals $4.5M Wastewater Leak Fine Against EQT to Supremes”
MDN first told you about IMG Midstream in August 2014 (see 
As MDN has noted over the past several months, the signs have been positive that Marcellus/Utica drilling is picking up once again. But that doesn’t mean it’s picking up in every location. Or does it? One of the hotbeds of drilling activity “back in the day” was in several northeastern/central Pennsylvania counties, including Tioga, Bradford, Lycoming and Sullivan. But then the bottom fell out of the industry (with super low prices) and drilling all but dried up in those counties. The good news is that there are signs of life, once again, in the central counties of PA. Between Nov. 1 and Mar. 6, 30 drilling permits were issued in Tioga County, 12 permits in Lycoming County, and (somewhat surprising), 8 permits issued in Sullivan County. Shale is coming back!…
One of the issues that isn’t going away is the demand by landowners in some Pennsylvania counties, like Bradford, for lawmakers in the state to pass a bill that guarantees them what they believe they are already guaranteed–a 12.5% minimum royalty, based on a 1979 law that states they should get such a royalty. We’ve extensively covered what we call a civil war between two parties who are otherwise friendly toward each other–landowners and shale drillers. Last year the issue came to a head with House Bill (HB) 1391 (
In October 2014 the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) fined PA driller EQT $4.53 million for a leaky wastewater impoundment in Tioga County, PA (see 
From time to time exploration and production companies (aka “drillers” or “producers”) decide to sell leases for acreage they don’t plan to drill on or under. Typically when a new play is discovered there is a bit of a land rush as drillers begin leasing. In the Marcellus, a driller may decide to concentrate on a specific county in the state, as Cabot Oil & Gas did with Susquehanna County in northeastern PA. Cabot happened to hit the jackpot with some of the most productive gas wells on the planet. Other times, when the leasing is done and drilling has begun drillers begin to figure out where they want to spend their money. It takes a lot of money to drill a Marcellus well–on the order of $7 million. Eventually drillers find there are isolated tracts of acreage they’ve leased that don’t fit with their future plans, so they either horse trade and swap, or perhaps put the acreage leases up for public auction. Such is the case with Shell’s SWEPI subsidiary. They recently posted three largish tracts of leased acreage up for auction–two in Tioga County, PA and one in Potter County, PA. Here’s a description of the land SWEPI is trying to dump…
In April 2015 Kinder Morgan’s Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) subsidiary filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to build 8.2 miles of new looping pipeline in Tioga County, PA and beef up two compressor stations in Bradford County, PA. The $142 million project is called the Susquehanna West Project. The project will increase capacity along a section of the TGP, bumping it up by 145 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d). All of the extra capacity is spoken for by Statoil and the wells they’ve drilled in NEPA. Good news: On Tuesday FERC issued their approval for the project, which means construction will begin in January 2017…
This one has us scratching our heads. Landowners Damon and Kendra Baker, in Tioga County, PA, signed a lease with Shell’s SWEPI in 2006. We’re guessing the signing bonus was peanuts because at that time the Marcellus was still in its infancy in PA. SWEPI constructed a well pad on their property in 2010 but had drilled no wells by the time the lease expired in 2011. The Bakers wanted a healthy re-signing bonus to allow SWEPI to lease their land again. SWEPI’s final offer was $150,000 (not sure for how many acres). The Baker’s, according to SWEPI, wanted half a million dollars. SWEPI said “no thanks” and therefore, according to state Dept. of Environmental Protection standards, needs to restore the property to its original state and be done with it. But the Bakers won’t let them re-enter the property. So SWEPI is suing and the clock is ticking–they only have until December to put it back to original condition or the company will be fined $500/day until it’s done…
Ever hear of a legal doctrine called “estoppel by deed”? No, we hadn’t either. But if you’re an attorney who specializes in oil and gas mineral rights in Pennsylvania, you may have. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently decided a case that upholds state laws of estoppel by deed. The case, called Shedden v. Anadarko, revolved around landowners in Tioga County, PA who thought they owned all of the mineral rights to 62 acres, only to find out half the rights belonged to someone else going all the way back to the 1800s. From there it gets complicated. What we can tell you is that some attorneys were concerned that the newly reconstituted PA Supreme Court would overturn the estoppel by deed law in the state–but that didn’t happen. Estoppel by deed is safe and sound in PA. Here’s the details…
Looks like there’s a new driller in the Marcellus/Utica. MDN received a tip from an industry insider to let us know that Travis Peak Resources, an Austin, TX-based exploration and production company (E&P, or “driller”), is firing up a rig to begin drilling in Tioga County, PA. Who’s Travis Peak? And are they targeting the Marcellus, or the Utica? We don’t have 100% definitive answers for you, but we do have some informed speculation…