Texas Oil and Gas Attorney Blog

Last fall, the Texas Railroad Commission held a hearing to consider a new rule for disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals. At the hearing, Chemistry Professor Andrew Barron from Rice University claimed that the rule would serve to demystify the chemicals used and help assure the public that the chemicals were not overly dangerous.The new rule will be codified as 16 Texas Administrative Code section 3.29 and would implement House Bill 3328. House Bill 3328 has already been passed by the Texas state legislature and signed by Governor Perry. Section 3.29(c) lists disclosure requirements for suppliers, service companies, and operators who are involved with hydraulic fracturing. Under the Rule, not later than 30 days after the completion of a hydraulic fracturing treatment, suppliers and service companies must provide the well operator with the names of each chemical substance that was purposely added to the hydraulic fracturing fluid. In particular, any chemical ingredient that requires a Material Safety Data Sheet must be listed.

The rule defines “chemical ingredient” as “a discrete chemical constituent with its own specific name or identity.” An additive is “any chemical substance or combination of substances” contained in a hydraulic fracturing fluid that is purposely added to the base fluid for a specific reason whether or not that reason is to create fractures in a formation.

Under the rule, operators of wells have the responsibility of submitting information to a hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure online registry. The data that must be given includes the operator’s name, the date of the treatment, the well’s location, the well’s API number, the amount of water used in the treatment, each chemical treatment used, and several other important pieces of information. Operators must also submit a well completion report for each well that received a hydraulic fracturing treatment to the Railroad Commission. Certain chemical ingredients are exempt from being listed under Section 3.29(d), such as ingredients not disclosed by their manufacturer, or ingredients not intentionally added to the hydraulic fracturing treatment. Ingredients that are trade secrets would also be protected from disclosure.

Contrary to the Obama administration’s expectations, it sounds as though states are doing a fine job regulating the oil and gas industry, according to members of a shale gas subcommittee in the U.S. Senate. In the Shale Gas Subcommittee 90-day Report subcommittee members reported to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a hearing last fall. The subcommittee was formed to make recommendations about the safety and environmental performance of shale gas production.The Report made 20 recommendations, including:

1. Improve public information about shale gas operations.

2. Improve communication between state and federal regulators. The subcommittee recommended continued yearly support to STRONGER (the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulation) and to the Ground Water Protection Council for expansion of a data management system that determines risk, along with similar programs.

3. Improve air quality. The subcommittee had recommendations for reducing general pollutants, ozone precursors, and methane quickly.

4. Protect water quality. The subcommittee recommended a water management system based on “consistent measurement and public disclosure of the flow and composition of water at every stage of the shale gas production process.”

5. Disclose fracturing fluid composition. The subcommittee believed that although the risk was remote that fluid from deep shale reservoirs fractures could leak into drinking water, any chemicals in fracturing fluids should be made available to the public.

6. Manage short-term and cumulative impacts on communities, land use, wildlife, and ecologies.
Continue reading →

Any good Texas oil and gas attorney must be fully versed in the Texas Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds is an old concept, requiring that certain contracts have to be in writing and signed to be valid. The Statute of Frauds dates back to at least seventeenth century England, and was exported to the United States as part of common law. It now exists in the Texas Uniform Commercial Code and in the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The Texas Statute of Frauds requires that all conveyances of real property and transfers of mineral interests (including oil and gas leases) be in a writing, signed by both parties.For an agreement to comply with the Statute of Frauds, it has to include all of the essential elements of the agreement. Basic elements include the time of performance and a description of the property. This may sound fairly straight forward, but time and again, disputes have arisen over oil and gas agreements and conveyances that failed to accurately describe the interest being conveyed — or in which the conveyance was not in writing at all.

For example, in Quigley v. Bennett (2007), geologist Robert Bennett charged Michael Quigley, an oil and gas operator, with fraudulently inducing him to perform services related to an oil and gas lease. Bennett claimed that he was entitled to an overriding royalty interest that Quigley had conveyed to him orally in return for certain services that Bennett performed. The Texas Supreme Court disagreed. Because Bennett and Quigley never put the conveyance in writing, Bennett had no interest. He therefore was not entitled to the $1 million award that the jury had given him.

More recently, in Preston Exploration Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Co. (2010), the Court reviewed a disagreement over the legal descriptions in Purchase and Sale Agreements for oil leases. Preston argued that the Purchase and Sale Agreements and exhibits complied with the Statute of Frauds because the description identified the property being conveyed with “reasonable certainty.” However, the District Court of the Southern District of Texas found that since neither the Agreements nor the exhibits included specific information about the location of the leases, they failed to comply with the Statute of Frauds.

The oil and gas industry is under attack not only in Texas, but nationally. Several months ago, a new study by Louisiana State University Professor Joseph Manson, An Economic Analysis of Dual Capacity and Section 199 Proposals for the U.S. Oil and Gas Industry, was released. Professor Manson’s study found that tax changes proposed by the Obama administration would actually increase the deficit.One of Obama’s proposals would prohibit oil and gas companies from using the manufacturer’s deduction created by Section 199 of the American Job Creation Act of 2004. The other proposal would create limits on foreign tax credits used by U.S. dual-capacity taxpayers. The Obama administration claims that these changes would lower the deficit and has included them in every annual budget proposal. Instead, Professor Manson demonstrates that these proposals would result in a loss of $53.5 billion a year in tax revenue.

Section 199 allows taxpayers who produce or manufacture in the United States to deduct a certain percentage of domestic production activity from their taxable income each year. The dual-capacity taxpayer rules prevent U.S. firms operating in foreign countries from being doubly taxed. Professor Manson’s study, sponsored by the American Energy Alliance, took a detailed look at the effect that the loss of these credits would have on the oil and gas industry. Professor Manson concluded that there would be a loss of 155,000 lost jobs, a loss of $68 billion in wages, and a loss of $83.5 billion in reduced tax revenues. Not only that, beware the unintended consequences: as more people are laid off, more people will request unemployment benefits, food stamps and other forms of assistance.

Professor Manson made his calculations using the Modern Regional Input-Output Modeling System II, developed by Nobel Economic Laureate Wassily Leontief, which supposes that when a company has to pay $1 more in taxes, it must take it out of other sources, such as workers’ pay. As a result, Professor Manson notes: “[A] tax on just a small number of firms can be felt throughout the economy.” He found that job losses go beyond those strictly related to oil and gas production: construction, retail, food services, and even arts and entertainment would feel the pain. Not only would there be significant job losses, but also the U.S. could suffer $341 million in lost output. The region hardest hit would be the Gulf of Mexico, where the local community has already suffered extensively following the Deepwater Horizon tragedy.