Recent Developments and Current Issues in Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Litigation

Similar documents
An Overview of Oil and Gas Lease Expiration Issues

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Development of the Marcellus and Utica Shale Plays: Reality or Illusion? David A. Kutik Roy A. Powell Jeffery D. Ubersax

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL REAL PROPERTY DIVISION

PRESENT: Lemons, Goodwyn, Millette, Mims, and Powell, JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. James Walsh, : Appellant : : v. : NO C.D : East Pikeland Township : Argued: June 5, 2003

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN BOUNDARY ASSOCIATION, INC. January 13, 2006

12--Can Property Owners Be Bound by Unrecorded Restrictions, Rights, and Obligations?

Larry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett.

These related appeals concern the rights of certain sign companies to. construct billboards in areas formerly located in unincorporated Fulton

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Appellant/Defendant, v. Case No. 12-C Appellant/Defendant. Case No.

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

v. CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order from the Circuit Court for Walton County. William F. Stone, Judge.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

Case 3:10-cv MO Document 123 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 9 Page ID#: 1439

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No July 27, P.2d 939

Larry E. Levy and Loren E. Levy of The Levy Law Firm, Tallahassee for Appellant/Cross-Appellee Rick Barnett.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION 1. Before the Court is the Objection of the FLYi and

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D

AN OVERVIEW OF OIL AND GAS LEASE EXPIRATION ISSUES. George A. Bibikos Cozen O Connor

Certiorari not Applied for COUNSEL

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

"

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLORIDA ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ARIZONA TAX COURT TX /18/2006 HONORABLE MARK W. ARMSTRONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION EASEMENTS ACT Act of Jun. 22, 2001, P.L. 390, No. 29 AN ACT Providing for the creation, conveyance, acceptance,

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2013

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

October 8, APPEARANCES: For Complainant Woolsey Well Service, L.P. and J & C Operating Co. Dick Marshall Rick Woolsey PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF STAFFORD COUNTY, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN JUNE 4, 2009 CRUCIBLE, INC.

S18A0430. CLAYTON COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS v. ALDEASA ATLANTA JOINT VENTURE.

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

2014 PA Super 100. Appellee No. 718 MDA 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL E OCTOBER 31, 2008 DION S OF TEXAS, INC.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. Case No. 5D JEAN SNYDER, KYLA RENEE S. PALMITER, et al.,

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ERVIN A. HIGGS, as Property Appraiser of Monroe County, Florida, CASE NO. SC

Cost-Free Royalties --- Where Valuation Begins and Post-Production Cost Deductions End

William S. Graessle of William S. Graessle, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. In this eminent domain action, the JEA appeals a final order awarding

STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT. } Appeal of Robustelli Realty } Docket No Vtec } Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

In the years leading up to the current economic crisis, a boom in real estate prices, fueled in part by

COUNSEL JUDGES. Federici, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: MACK EASLEY, Chief Justice, H. VERN PAYNE, Justice. AUTHOR: FEDERICI OPINION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No. Appellees. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION BY APPELLANTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2009

No January 3, P.2d 750

Pondview, and a Scarce Resource Restraint imposed by the Council on June 13, All briefs have been filed and the appeal is pending in the

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

VALUATION OF PROPERTY. property. REALTORS need to keep in mind first, that the Occupational Code limits what

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010

SECOND CLASS CITY TREASURER'S SALE AND COLLECTION ACT Act of Oct. 11, 1984, P.L. 876, No. 171 AN ACT

By motion dated January 3, 2 008, the New Jersey Council. on Affordable Housing (the "Council" or "COAH") received a request

Oil & Gas Leases Other Issues and Concerns

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellants :

UNINTENTIONAL DUAL AGENCY HOW FAR CAN YOU GO TO CLOSE THE DEAL?

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. Appellees, : C.A. CASE NO v. : T.C. NO. 02 CV 1606

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE August 15, 2007 Session

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES M. RAMSEY, JR., ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL APRIL 16, 2015 COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS

The Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Rush: The Impact of Drilling on Surface Owner Rights

Gas Gathering Agreements: The Treatment of GGAs as Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) I. INTRODUCTION

Predicting Litigation Trends in Oil and Gas Haynes and Boone, LLP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA 2 ND DCA CASE NO FSC CASE NO ROB TURNER, as Hillsborough County Property Appraiser. Appellant, vs.

Circuit Court for Montgomery County Case No v UNREPORTED

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,364 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JAMES F. SHEPHERD, Appellee,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. CASE NO. SC10-90 / SC10-91 (Consolidated) (Lower Tribunal Case No. s 3D08-944, )

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES

ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO JULY TERM, 2018

ENTRY ORDER 2007 VT 109 SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO MARCH TERM, 2007

Transcription:

Recent Developments and Current Issues in Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Litigation 2014-15 Paul K. Stockman www.mcguirewoods.com

What s New and Trending The big picture Equitable tolling of leases Tax Washing The aftereffects of Robinson Township Citizen challenges to midstream project development And more McGuireWoods 2

The Big Picture The Pennsylvania Supreme Court continues to go it alone. Pennsylvania precedent still tends to trump majority rule. Plain meaning still rules. Lease language > creative lessor arguments. Lease and title disputes still matter, even in a low-price environment. The pipeline is still full Robinson Township might not turn out to be a big deal. Plus ça change, plus c est la même chose. But that s not stopping anyone There s been no slow-down in citizen challenges. McGuireWoods 3

Harrison v. Cabot Oil & Gas 110 A.3d 178 (Pa. 2015). The upshot: lessors challenges to lease validity do not toll the primary term. Lessor challenged the lease, alleging fraudulent inducement; Cabot counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that primary term was tolled during the pendency of the dispute. The M.D. Pa. upheld the lease, but declined to toll the lease term. The Supreme Court, on certification from the Third Circuit, agreed. The mere filing of a dec action is not per se anticipatory repudiation. But other, more affirmative acts may be sufficient. E.g., would barring access to the property be an anticipatory repudiation? The Court focused on the fact that the lessee could have included an express provision tolling the lease term. Note: the Court disregarded decisions from other jurisdictions. McGuireWoods 4

Harrison v. Cabot Oil & Gas, cont d The take-aways: Include an express tolling provision in the lease, and/or a covenant that lessor will not cause or create an encumbrance or cloud on title. Consider demanding adequate assurance of future performance The Court did not address this doctrine, so it may or may not work. Consider steps to expedite lease litigation. Consider early dispositive motions. Especially if you re in federal court, where they re not as disfavored. Consider taking steps to begin operations, so as to continue the lease into the secondary term. Fairly modest steps, if taken in good faith, have been held to extend a lease into the secondary term (e.g., staking well locations, unloading timber, permitting activities, grading of access road, etc.) McGuireWoods 5

Herder Spring Hunting Club v. Keller 93 A.3d 465 (Pa. Super Ct. 2014), alloc. granted, 108 A.3d 1279 (Pa. 2015) The Supreme Court will decide whether historical (pre-1962) tax sales of unseated (i.e., undeveloped) land can convey previously-severed oil and gas estates. The backdrop: An 1806 statute required those becoming a holder of unseated lands to report them for assessment. Taxes against unseated property were deemed to be assessed against the property itself in rem. Historically, landowners would take advantage of this to try to wash their title, defaulting on taxes and buying the property back at tax sale in order to eliminate clouds on the title. Because taxes were deemed to be owed by the property itself, there was no effort to provide individual notice to interested owners. McGuireWoods 6

Herder Spring Hunting Club v. Keller, cont d The Herder Spring case: The Kellers sold property in 1899, reserving subsurface rights. The record did not show that they reported the severed subsurface rights for taxation. Note: at the time, oil and gas was not taxable unless it could be valued by reference to production in the area. In 1935, Centre County obtained the property at tax sale and sold it to Herder Spring s predecessor-in-title. The Court of Common Pleas held that the reserved oil and gas estate could not be taxed, and thus could not have been sold at the tax sale. The Superior Court disagreed. McGuireWoods 7

Herder Spring Hunting Club v. Keller, cont d The Superior Court s ruling: The entire property was included in the assessment, including the subsurface, unless the owners of the severed subsurface could prove that it was separately reported. The tax sale thus conveyed the entire property, including the severed subsurface estate (even though that subsurface estate could not legally be taxed). The court recognized the apparent injustice, but held its nose: We are aware that our resolution of this matter is at odds with modern legal concepts and may be seen as unduly harsh, but [w]e do not believe it proper to reach back, more than three score years, to apply a modern sensibility and thereby undo that which was legally done. 93 A.3d at 473 McGuireWoods 8

Herder Spring Hunting Club v. Keller, cont d The Supreme Court has accepted review. The principal questions: How should the 1806 statute be construed? It requires action by those becoming a holder of unseated lands. Does someone retaining a reserved interest become a holder? Should the holder of a reservation be penalized because its successor-in-title failed to report its interest, or mis-reported the limited nature of its interest? Would subsurface oil and gas have been considered lands in 1806? Note that the Court directed that tax statutes are to be construed strictly. Do in rem tax sales without any effort at individual notice to property owners violate due process? An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). McGuireWoods 9

Herder Spring Hunting Club v. Keller, cont d Briefing is complete and the parties are awaiting an argument date. The take-aways: Don t assume that a title search going back only a few decades will disclose all potentially-interested parties or potential adverse claims. Many of these potentially-questionable sales took place in the late 19 th or early 20 th centuries. Assume that any oil and gas interest flowing from a treasurer s deed may be subject to attack. Even if the Supreme Court affirms Herder Spring, it may just shift the terrain of battle to issues involving the conduct of the tax sale. McGuireWoods 10

The aftermath of Robinson Township 83 A.3d 901 (Pa. 2013) Robinson Township struck down Act 13 s state-wide land use provisions. But the plurality did not stop there. To recap, it held: The Pennsylvania Constitution s Environmental Rights Amendment (Article I, Section 27) requires each branch of government to consider in advance of proceeding the environmental effect of any proposed action. 83 A.3d at 952. The General Assembly, despite having the right to enumerate municipal powers, has no authority to remove a political subdivision s implicitly necessary authority to carry into effect its constitutional duties. Id. at 977. The Amendment is self-executing, creating a constitutional right personal to each citizen and that is judicially enforceable. Id. at 951 n.39; see also id. at 952-53, 974. McGuireWoods 11

The aftermath of Robinson Township, cont d The plurality opinion also reflected a deep-seated hostility toward shale gas development: By any responsible account, the exploitation of the Marcellus Shale Formation will produce a detrimental effect on the environment, the people, their children, and future generations, and potentially on the public purse, potentially rivaling the environmental effects of coal extraction. 83 A.3d at 976. (Tellingly, the plurality made these findings on a record consisting only of affidavits from Act 13 s critics.) What would this mean? McGuireWoods 12

The aftermath of Robinson Township, cont d The Commonwealth Court s opinion on remand: The court upheld 58 Pa.C.S. 3302, precluding municipalities from regulating areas already covered by the Oil and Gas Act. 96 A.3d 1104, 1120 (2014). This reaffirms Range Resources Appalachia v. Salem Township, 964 A.2d 569 (Pa. 2009). The court upheld provisions requiring DEP to provide notice of spills to public, but not private, water supplies, and allowing health care professionals to obtain information about the chemical composition of fracturing fluids while still protecting its proprietary character. 96 A.3d at 1111-19. The court held that 58 Pa.C.S. 3305-3308, allowing the PaPUC to review local ordinances, were not severable from the invalid portions of Act 13, and thus were invalid. Id. at 1120-22. PaPUC has asked the Supreme Court to review and reverse this holding. McGuireWoods 13

The aftermath of Robinson Township, cont d Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund v. Commonwealth, 1 108 A.3d 140 (2015): PEDF challenged the allocation of public oil and gas revenues, arguing that Article I, Section 27 required that those funds be spent only for environmental protection or resource conservation. The Commonwealth Court disagreed. The court buried its blockbuster holding in a footnote: The Robinson Township plurality is not binding, and is persuasive only to the extent it is consistent with binding precedent from this Court and the Supreme Court on the same subject. Id. at 156 n.37. The court continued to apply the three-part test from Payne v. Kassab, 312 A.2d 86 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1973). Other courts, and the Environmental Hearing Board, are in accord. McGuireWoods 14

The aftermath of Robinson Township, cont d Unanswered questions Is local zoning now constitutionalized? The plurality plus Justice Baer s concurrence together suggest yes. Is there a constitutional tort claim available to challenge any governmental act? The Commonwealth Court seemed to assume as much in Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, although it rejected the claim on the merits. 2015 WL 4461069 (Pa. Commw. Ct. July 22, 2015). Even under Payne v. Kassab, there s a lot of room for argument. Can the right to challenge governmental inaction allow litigation that would seek to preclude purely private activities? Does Article I, Section 27 require pre-development environmental impact assessments as a matter of constitutional law? McGuireWoods 15

The aftermath of Robinson Township, cont d What s next Citizen groups still treat Robinson Township as a case for all seasons. As a result, the Supreme Court at some point will need to wade back into this dispute. In that event, would a majority of the Court speak so broadly? Note that two of the members of the Robinson Township plurality are no longer on the Court (former Chief Justice Castille and former Justice McCaffery). McGuireWoods 16

The aftermath of Robinson Township, cont d The take-aways For now, Robinson Township s effect has been dampened by the ruling in PEDF. Even so, do not overlook the potential for citizen group challenges, and stay attuned to the developing case law in this area. Because land use decisions are once again made on a local basis, be prepared to engage with municipal zoning boards. At the same time, because Oil and Gas Act standards still trump local rules, also be prepared to launch challenges if municipalities overreach. McGuireWoods 17

The Next Battleground: Midstream Citizen groups have shifted their strategy from attempting to preclude or limit drilling toward attempting to prevent oil and gas from getting to end-users. New pipeline proposals face widespread opposition, and challenges upon a number of regulatory fronts. Challenges to emission permits before PaDEP and the EHB. Challenges to eminent domain and pipeline companies status as public utilities. Challenges in FERC certification proceedings. Local land use challenges. Etc. McGuireWoods 18

The Next Battleground: Midstream, cont d Source aggregation: Citizen groups have been challenging air emission permits, contending that multiple facilities should be deemed a single emission source. This would require more complicated and costly new source review and major source permitting. The regulations require grouping of sources located on contiguous or adjacent properties. It is argued that this requires grouping of sources that are functionally interrelated. McGuireWoods 19

The Next Battleground: Midstream, cont d Source aggregation: To date, citizen groups efforts to aggregate multiple facilities have not been successful. E.g., in Citizens for Pennsylvania s Future v. Ultra Resources, the court held that eight compressor stations should not be daisychained together to establish a contiguous grouping, where they were not connected and operate independently of one another, with no discernable relationship between the individual stations. 2015 WL 769757 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2015). But the court in PennFuture v. Ultra would not categorically rule out functional interrelatedness as a basis for aggregating multiple sources. And the EHB has opined that it is a fact-specific determination. National Fuel Gas Midstream v. PaDEP, 2014 WL 6537086 (Oct. 31, 2014). McGuireWoods 20

The Next Battleground: Midstream, cont d Challenges to pipelines status as public utilities : Citizen groups and landowners are also challenging pipeline companies ability to exercise rights given to public utilities. E.g., in Sunoco Pipeline v. Loker, a York County court held that Sunoco was not a public utility with the right of eminent domain (because it was regulated by FERC as a common carrier ). No. 2014-SU-4518-05 (C.C.P. York C ty Feb. 24, 2014). E.g., two PaPUC administrative law judges ruled that Sunoco was not a public utility within the meaning of the Municipalities Planning Code, and thus was not exempt from municipal zoning. Petition of Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., No. P-2014-241194 The full PUC disagreed, by a 4-1 margin. Before the issue could be resolved definitively, Sunoco reached agreements with the affected municipalities and withdrew its petitions. So the issue remains unsettled. McGuireWoods 21

The Next Battleground: Midstream, cont d Quaere what effect the Wolf administration s newly-appointed pipeline task force will have? McGuireWoods 22

But wait, there s more Lease disputes: Pennsylvania courts continue to give language its plain meaning, rejecting creative lessor arguments. Shedden v. Anadarko E. & P. Co., 88 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). While largely about estoppel by deed, the Superior Court also relied on the lease s Mother Hubbard clause to hold that after-acquired property is subject to lease. Supreme Court accepted appeal; to be argued in November. Warren v. Equitable Gas Co. and Mason v. Range Resources, No 697 WDA 2014 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 4, 2015); 2015 WL 4531299 (W.D. Pa. July 27, 2015). Under dual purpose (production and storage) leases, use of the property for storage holds the lease in effect for all purposes. The production and storage aspects of the habendum clause are not severable. Danko Holdings v. EXCO Resources, 57 F. Supp. 2d 389 (M.D. Pa 2014) Change in ownership clauses are enforceable. McGuireWoods 23

But wait, there s more Pooling issues and missing or non-consenting owners: Pennsylvania law remains unclear. How does compulsory unitization under the Oil and Gas Conservation Law work? See 58 P.S. 401 et seq. This is potentially applicable to the Utica Shale, but not the Marcellus. Hilcorp Energy has withdrawn its efforts to create well spacing and drilling units in Mercer County. How are trusts in favor of absent owners created under the Dormant Oil and Gas Act? See 58 P.S. 701.1 et seq. Chesapeake s efforts to create such a trust have so far proven fruitless. See In re Hill, No. 1125 MDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 21, 2014 & May 22, 2014). Is the recent amendment to the Oil and Gas Lease Act, permitting unitization in the absence of expressly preclusive lease language, valid? See 58 P.S. 34.1. One trial court says yes, but the litigation remains pending. See EQT Prod. Co. v. Opatkiewicz, No. GD-13-13489 (C.C.P. Allegheny C ty July 22, 2013). McGuireWoods 24

But wait, there s more Enforcement civil and even criminal remains a priority. Exhibit A: the June 2015 $8.9 million civil penalty against Range Resources. Exhibit B: the ongoing criminal charges against XTO. Contamination claims remain hard for landowners to prove.. E.g., in Kiskadden v. DEP, the EHB found that drilling did not cause contamination in the appellant s private well. 2015 WL 3798582 (June 12, 2015) But it still is difficult to make these cases go away quickly. See, e.g., Russell v. Chesapeake Appalachia, 305 F.R.D. 78 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (declining to enter Lone Pine order). Restrictions on health care workers ability to disclose proprietary fracturing fluid formulas have survived challenge. See Rodriguez v. Secretary, 604 Fed. App x 113 (3d Cir. 2015); Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth, 96 A.3d 1104, 1115-19 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). But disclosure still has been compelled in civil proceedings. See Haney v. Range Resources, 2015 WL 1812842; Kiskadden v. PaDEP, 2014 WL 2747482 (EHB June 10, 2014). McGuireWoods 25

Questions or Comments? Paul Stockman pstockman@mcguirewoods.com 412-667-7945 www.mcguirewoods.com McGuireWoods 26