Texas Oil and Gas Attorney Blog

In my law practice, I represent only Texas royalty owners, mineral owners and surface owners, and I do not ever represent oil companies. It is important for both my clients and I to have access to accurate facts, and not emotional arguments, when trying to make the best decisions for a client’s property. For that reason, I do pay attention to what oil companies have to say about their operations. From time to time, we might actually learn something!

Clean Fracing Conference

Clearing, the process of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracing” as it is usually called, has been in the media quite a bit. A panel of public relations experts at the Petroleum Connection’s Clean Fracing Conference in Houston, Texas recently argued that the oil and gas industry needs to change the conversation on fracing. For those of us who have been working in this industry, this seems like an obvious statement, but one that badly needs attention. Up until now, critics have been allowed to define the conversation. This debate is particularly important for Texas mineral owners as well as operators since Texas is home to at least three major shale plays that make use of fracing for most wells.

Plains All American Pipeline LP, based in Houston, Texas, is planning to expand its pipeline system in the Permian Basin over the next four years. Parts of that expansion will happen in Texas. These projects bring more money and jobs and exemplify how our oil and gas industry continues to thrive. A healthy oil and gas sector means more royalties paid to Texas mineral owners.

The first of the four projects will be to add pumps to Plains existing 20″ Basin pipeline from Jal, New Mexico, to Wink, Texas. This will increase the pipeline’s capacity by 100,000 barrels per day. This first project will also include building a 40 mile long 12″ pipeline from Monahans to Crane, Texas, which will supply the Longhorn pipeline and the Cactus pipeline.

The second project is to build 62 mile, 16″ and 20″ pipelines with a 200,000 barrels per day capacity. This pipeline will go from the South Midland basin in Central Reagan and Central Upton counties in Texas to McCarney.

A new partnership has been formed in the energy industry that may benefit shale oil and gas drilling in Texas: the American Shale and Manufacturing Partnership. The member organizations include manufacturing, labor, environmental, academic, and business organizations. It was launched November 19, 2014 at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The goal of the new group is a renaissance in American manufacturing, and to remind policymakers that hindering the development of shale oil and gas could hamper an already fragile economic recover in the United States.

Charles T. Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a member of the new partnership, said: “The dream of bringing manufacturing back to the United States is very real, but it requires our government developing policies that encourage growth instead of putting regulatory barriers in the way.” Matthew Sanfilippo, senior executive director of research initiatives at Carnegie Mellon University’s College of Engineering, noted that new technologies and domestic energy options like shale gas can transform American manufacturing.

Shale gas has created 2.1 million American jobs already, and it is expected to create another 1.25 million in the next ten years. Tax revenue from the industry is also expected to total $2.5 trillion by 2035 according to the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. These statistics demonstrate why shale gas is so critical for manufacturing, especially due to job creation. “It is critical that the opportunities created by gas are compounded to deliver a reconstruction of our manufacturing base that will produce good community-building jobs, reduce trade deficits, and enhance our nation’s competitiveness and security,” said Walter Wise from the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers.

Over the past few months there have been letters going back and forth between the National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis and Representative Rob Bishop, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.

On September 6, 2013, Representative Bishop sent Director Jarvis a letter (that you can view here) in which he questioned comments made by the National Park Service to the Bureau of Land Management about well stimulation and hydraulic fracturing on Federal and Indian lands. In his letter, Representative Bishop questioned the scientific integrity of the sources and data upon which the comments of Director Jarvis were based. As authority for his comments, the Park Service Director used a New York Times opinion piece written by Anthony Ingraffea. Mr. Ingraffea wrote that shale gas is a gangplank to global warming because of alleged methane leaks. The section of the Park Service’s comments quoting Mr. Ingraffea stated that methane leakage rates were 2.3% to 17% of annual gas production and claimed to get these numbers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Representative Bishop’s letter questioned why the Park Service was relying on a reporter’s opinion as a source of data and requested a determination of the information’s accuracy.

On November 12, 2013, Director Jarvis wrote a letter in response (that you can read here) to these questions. Jarvis admitted including a quote from a New York Times Op-Ed was inappropriate and sources should have been peer-reviewed scientific studies. He wrote that the Park Service does not rely on opinion pieces in newspapers as a basis for decision making. He also admitted the comments the Park Service made to to BLM were not adequately reviewed before they were delivered. He said that no one from management looked at these comments and he claims they were erroneously uploaded onto regulations.gov, contrary to established protocol. Because of these issues, Director Jarvis withdrew the National Park Service comments.

Texas tops the list of most attractive jurisdictions for petroleum exploration and production investment, while Oklahoma leads the world with the most desirable policy environment, according to the annual Global Petroleum Survey compiled by the Fraser Institute.

The survey attempts to provide information about perceptions affecting investment decisions, including those on tax rates, regulatory obligations, uncertainty over environmental and other administrative regulations, as well as concerns regarding political stability and the security of personnel and equipment. These perceptions were assessed via a survey evaluating 157 jurisdictions, and compiled into the Fraser Institute’s Policy Perception Index.

In order, the jurisdictions perceived as having the policy environment most favorable to petroleum exploration and production investment are Oklahoma, Mississippi, Saskatchewan, Texas, Arkansas, Kansas, Alabama, North Dakota, Manitoba, and the Netherlands/North Sea. The jurisdictions perceived as the worst for petroleum exploration and production investment are Russia (except Offshore Arctic, Offshore Sakhalin, and Eastern Siberia), Iraq, South Sudan, Russia/Eastern Siberia, Uzbekistan, Russia/Offshore Arctic, Bolivia, Iran, Ecuador, and Venezuela.