Texas Oil and Gas Attorney Blog

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I am keenly interested in the political climate in which the oil and gas industry operates. Politics has a lot to do with how much oil and gas this country produces. For example, in the White House’s proposed Budget for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2012, Barack Obama set forth a budget that “eliminates inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” The administration did so as a part of its ongoing plan to shift the nations energy policy toward investments in “clean energy sources” like photovoltaics and wind power generation. This issue is one that has gained even greater notoriety when Republican House Speaker John Boehner recently informed ABC News that he was open to eliminate one of these tax breaks — the “ oil depletion allowance” — for large oil companies as a measure to help maintain the fiscal health of the government. He went on to state that he was open to evaluating the President’s proposed subsidy cuts as well. In response, the President wrote a letter to Speaker Boehner and other Congressional leaders asking them to support the elimination of the oil and gas industry tax subsidies.In the aforementioned interview, Speaker Boehner stated that small and independant oil producers in the United States need the “oil depletion allowance.” Representative Boehner went on to say that smaller oil firms need those subsidies to continue the current rate of exploration for new sources of petroleum reserves within U.S. borders. A later statement issued by his office stated that Boehner wishes to increase the amount of energy produced in the country to free the country from the market vagaries of oil sourced abroad, and that the President’s proposed plan would boost gas prices higher. Should the budget be approved unamended by Congress, around 4 billion dollars worth of subsidies and tax breaks will disappear, and the ramifications of such a move could have an adverse effect on our recovering economy.

Boehner’s statements to ABC illustrate the importance of evaluating all sides to this issue, and highlight the fact that the domestic oil industry is not solely comprised of billion dollar corporations. In fact, according to the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA), small scale oil producers do the majority of oil exploration in the United States. Such organizations employ only twelve individuals on average, but they drill ninety-five percent of new oil wells, and produce two-thirds of our nation’s domestic oil and natural gas. In our next post, we will examine the existing “oil depletion allowance,” the proposed budget’s tax subsidy cuts, and the effect such changes could have on independent oil producers in the US.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I have authored a series of articles on this site concerning the pros and cons of alternative energy. As I prepared to return to the topic, I began to ponder a more general question. When we use the phrase “alternative energy” or “alternative fuels,” what exactly do we mean? Any lawyer will tell you that words have very precise meanings: when you are using a word, it is very important that you are clear what you mean when you use that word. Let us avoid the error of the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, who made words mean anything he chose! Therefore, in writing about alternative energy, I have to ask two important questions: first, an alternative to what? And secondly, what alternative?

The dictionary defines alternative in one usage as “different from the usual or conventional.” So when we speak of alternative energy, we are talking about sources of energy different from the usual or conventional sources. But “usual or conventional sources” can mean different things.Alternative energy is often spoken of in relation to oil. With every spike in the price of oil and the resulting rise in the price of gasoline, the usual cries are heard: we are too dependent on imported oil, our economy is too vulnerable to increases in energy costs as a result of that dependence, and for our own economic and national security we need to reduce that dependence. The natural choice, at least in the near future, would be to develop our own domestic sources of oil. That choice, however, has been to date choked off because of environmental concerns: exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge was rejected by Congress, and the moratorium on new oil exploration in the Gulf imposed by the Obama administration after the Deepwater Horizon spill are the two most prominent examples of the roadblocks placed by environmentalists and their allies in Washington. So, it would seem that, for some, alternative energy does not mean using alternative sources for the current dominant energy source of oil.

In addition to developing new sources of oil, alternative energy can mean expanding the use of existing sources of energy. Three such sources are coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. Each has their advocates. Coal is still plentiful in the United States, and efforts are underway to develop clean coal technology designed to reduce emissions claimed to contribute to man-made global warming. Natural gas is also plentiful, given current estimates of reserves, and it is also the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels with almost no greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal or oil. Finally, in spite of safety concerns over the last several decades, nuclear energy has gained it’s advocates as the energy source least likely to contribute to global warming. All three sources are proven technologies and have the production and delivery infrastructure in place to reduce oil’s percentage of America’s energy production. But none of them are particularly popular among environmentalists who advocate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; coal and natural gas are still fossil fuels that are non-renewable and are claimed to exact a toll on the environment in their production and use. As far as nuclear energy-well, the vast majority of environmentalists have nothing good to say, pointing to issues involving waste disposal and fears of some catastrophic Chernobyl-type disaster. These, then, are not the alternatives that advocates of alternative energy intend when they speak of alternative energy.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I am deeply concerned at the constant beating the oil and gas industry takes from Obama and his administration. Obama paints oil and gas companies as Machiavellian monoliths, with their CEO’s sitting around in tails and top hats like the millionaire in the Monopoly game. I can’t recall a president as antagonistic to the industry since Jimmy Carter’s ill-informed and destructive policies resulted in a great deal of oil production being driven from the United States. However, Obama may surpass Carter in his destructiveness. This is the behavior of a misguided idealogue and a demagogue, especially because the announced basis for these policies is so inaccurate. Obama’s speeches appear calculated to generate some kind of “us against them” mentality. But it is not a case of “us against them”. We are them. Most of our oil and gas comes from smaller, independent producers, not the big companies. This assault will cost us jobs and energy at a time when both are in short supply.

The latest assault on the oil and gas industry is Obama’s announcement that he wants to end “oil and gas subsidies”. I think this is Obama-speak for eliminating the depletion allowance. However, Obama does not apply the same view towards all the other subsidies the federal government hands out. For example, most informed people are aware that the real estate debaucle and resultant depression of the last few years is a direct result of the goal of Democrats to buy votes by making sure everybody bought a house, whether they could afford it or not. This policy was expressed in the insistence of a Democratic Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lower their standards in loan qualification (if they are breathing and have a copy of their last utility bill, they qualify), and in the easy money policy of the Federal Reserve. We all know how that turned out. Incredibly, both those policies are still in place. Not only are these policies still in place, but now we have other federal programs to bail out the people who could not afford their mortgage in the first place. This is insanity!

I ran across a quote by Glenn Reynolds recently, that put it far better than I could. Professor Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee. His blog, Instapundit, is the source of many thoughtful comments. Here is a quote from his blog regarding subsidies:

Like many Texas oil and gas attorneys, I am keenly interested in the struggle unfolding between the EPA, Congress and the State of Texas. In a previous blog post, I discussed the EPA‘s recent efforts to regulate greenhouse gasses across the nation. Today, I’ll describe the State of Texas‘ and the US Congress’ responses to the EPA’s new greenhouse gas rules.

The EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations require the states to implement a federally mandated greenhouse gas permitting system. Under EPA greenhouse gas regulations, new, large power plants that are already required to obtain pollution permits must also obtain a greenhouse gas permit. The permit would require those new power plants to implement the newer technologies available to control carbon dioxide emissions.

Most states agreed to implement the EPA’s new greenhouse gas plan. Texas and Wyoming, on the other hand, filed legal challenges to the program.

Texas Governor Rick Perry publicly refused to go along with the EPA. Governor Perry’s spokeswoman called the EPA’s plans “misguided,” “unnecessary,” and “burdensome,” and said that the the permitting system threatens “hundreds of thousands of Texas jobs” and imposes “increased living costs on Texas families.”

The EPA caught wind of Perry’s refusal and took matters into their own hands. Because it was clear that Texas would not implement the new greenhouse gas rules, the EPA decided to take over Texas’ greenhouse gas permit program. So, new power plants that are required to get a greenhouse gas permit under the EPA’s greenhouse rules would need to get that permit directly from the EPA, rather than the State of Texas.
Continue reading →

Much to the chagrin of many Texans, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently decided to regulate greenhouse gasses around the nation. This decision was a long time in the making and has important implications for the State of Texas and the whole nation. In this blog post, I’ll describe the legal backdrop of greenhouse gas regulation, and I’ll summarize the EPA’s proposed plans to tackle greenhouse gasses.

Greenhouse gasses are heat trapping gasses that some scientists believe cause global warming. Carbon dioxide is one of the most abundant greenhouse gasses, and some climate change experts believe that the compound’s increased presence in the Earth’s atmosphere causes global climate change. The compound is created naturally through human and animal respiration, and it is also a natural by-product of combustion. When humans burn things, like coal, oil or natural gas, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. It is not yet definitely proven, in my mind, that man-made carbon dioxide has any appreciable impact on the earth’s temperature.

In the 2007 US Supreme Court case Massachusetts vs. EPA, the Court held that the EPA is required to study greenhouse gas emissions and determine whether greenhouse gas regulation is appropriate under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The Supreme Court held that CAA section 202(a)(1) applies to greenhouse gasses, in addition to more traditional pollutants. The Court cited Section 202(a)(1) which requires the EPA Administrator to set emission standards for “any air pollutant” . . . “which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” While the Supreme Court did not hold that the EPA must regulate greenhouse gasses, it did require the EPA Administrator to take the first step and determine whether or not greenhouse gasses are reasonably anticipated to endanger public welfare.

In 2009, the EPA Administrator made two important findings. The Administrator found that current and projected concentrations of six key, well-mixed greenhouse gasses 1) contribute to man-made global warming, and 2) threaten the public health and welfare of current generations. Remember that under Massachusetts v. EPA‘s interpretation of the CAA, the EPA must regulate air all pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Once the EPA determined that greenhouse gasses lead to global warming, the EPA was poised to set emissions standards for greenhouse gasses, as required by Massachusetts v. EPA‘s interpretation of the CAA.
Continue reading →

This week we continue our examination of ethanol as an alternative energy source. As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I am particularly interested in the impact that a shift from fossil fuels to alternatives would have on our economy and on our society. It is an unavoidable fact that we are a fossil fuel-based society; any shift from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources will have costs associated with them. While we don’t know what all those costs will be, our experience with ethanol shows that the costs-at least in the early stages of development-can at best limit, and at worst outweigh, any benefits gained from the use of alternative fuels.

What are some of the costs of using ethanol as an alternative energy source? After looking at the issue, I believe there are three primary costs:

• The cost to us as taxpayers • The cost to us as consumers • The cost to our environment
These costs are well documented in study after study, but you never hear about them in the media. The media and the public seem to have bought the idea of limitless and cost-free benefits accruing to our society. There are some benefits, as other studies have shown. But if we don’t look at the costs, how can we decide if the benefits are worthwhile?

What are the costs to us as taxpayers? In order to encourage ethanol production, Congress has approved generous subsidies to farmers and refiners. Since 1978, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) has provided refiners with an incentive to blend corn ethanol with gasoline. According to the the Government Accountability Office, in 2008 the government gave a total of $4 billion dollars in subsidies for corn-based ethanol; in 2009 the figure jumped to $6 billion dollars. Ethanol production in that year replaced a mere 2% of the U.S. gasoline supply. The average cost to the taxpayer was the equivalent of $82 a barrel, or $1.95 a gallon on top of the gasoline price. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of replacing one gallon of conventional gasoline was $1.78 per gallon for corn ethanol in 2009. In addition to the tax credit, there is the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) which currently requires 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel (primarily ethanol) to be blended with gasoline by 2022 as well as a tariff on the importation of ethanol which functions much the same way a tax would, by increasing the cost of imports to consumers.
Continue reading →

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I have spent 33 years observing the Texas Railroad Commission, the agency in Texas that regulates oil and gas drilling, production and pipelines (among other things). In my experience, the Railroad Commission is tough and efficient. I have never seen them act as a rubber stamp for the oil and gas industry. Each time I have assisted a client with a complaint to the Railroad Commission, I have been pleased with their grasp of the situation and their sensitivity to consumers. In my experience (and even though I don’t always agree with them), they do a good job.

The demonstrable competency of the Railroad Commission is one reason that the most recent intrusion by the federal government into Texas’ affairs is especially disturbing. I am speaking, of course, of the emergency order issued on December 7, 2010 by the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) to Range Production Company, forcing a cessation of it’s activities in Parker and Hood Counties, Texas. This latest arrogance by the feds is unconscionable. In support of my statement, (and lest you think I am being extreme here), please consider the following:

Item One: The EPA order shuts down legitimate business operations, puts people out of work, and interrupts the production of a clean and environmentally sound fuel. So, you might assume the EPA had some evidence for what they are doing. You would be wrong.The EPA has apparently viewed the “documentary” (and I am using that term very loosely) called “Gasland” and taken it for fact. Certainly, many homeowners who live near wells have watched it, and probably thought it was factual. The truth is that most of what is depicted in this film is patently false. For example, in at least two scenes, homeowners in Colorado are shown lighting their tap water on fire, presumably due to contamination from gas well drilling, fracking or production.The truth is that these occurrences were thoroughly investigated by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the “COGCC”). The result of the investigation? There was methane in the water from naturally occurring methane deposits. The drilling of, fracking for and production of gas from wells in the vicinity had nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, to do with it. You can read a summary of the COGCC’s report here.
Continue reading →

When discussing the issues involved in national energy and environmental policy, the subject of alternative energy frequently comes up. As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I follow these discussions with great interest. The outcomes of our decisions about alternative energy sources will eventually effect anyone even tangentially connected with the oil and gas industry in this country. That’s why a balanced evaluation of the proposed alternatives to fossil fuels is so important. In this first of several blogs about alternative energy, we’ll be looking at one of the most widely used today-ethanol.

Ethanol, or grain alcohol, has been around as a fuel for well over a century. Henry Ford’s first vehicle, the Quadricycle, was designed to run on pure ethanol; later, his Model-T could run on pure ethanol, gasoline, or a mixture of both. In fact, Ford continued to be an advocate for ethanol as a motor fuel well into the 1920s, long after cheap and plentiful gasoline became the fuel of choice. The low price of gasoline until the 1970s dampened the further use of ethanol (save for a brief time during World War II). This changed with the gasoline price shocks of the 1970s. Interest in ethanol revived, spurred by government subsidies targeting the development of synthetic fuels. When gasoline prices plummeted in the 1980s, research into the commercial production of synthetic fuels stopped to a great extent. Interest in ethanol, however, remained.

The interest in ethanol, at least through the 1990s and early 2000s, was not as a replacement for gasoline but as a fuel additive for environmental reasons. The Clean Air Act of 1990 and the Alternative Motor Fuels Acts mandated the use of oxygenates to reduce carbon emissions from automobiles. The two most widely used oxygenates were MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) and ethanol. By the early 2000s, however, the EPA mandated the phasing out of MTBEs because of fears of groundwater contamination. Today, ethanol is the most widely used gasoline additive, with most areas requiring a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline.With the rising price of gasoline worldwide, along with fears of man-made climate change, the possibility of ethanol partially-or fully-replacing fossil fuels for motor vehicles has gained great currency. From 2007 to 2008, ethanol’s share in global gasoline-type fuel used increased from 3.7% to 5.4%; in 2009 world production reached 19.5 billion gallons. The world leaders in ethanol production are Brazil and the United States, with a combined 80% share. (See Executive Summary: “Assessing Biofuels” UNEP 2009). Ethanol can be produced from a wide variety of grains and other feedstock such as corn (the predominate source in the United States) and sugar cane (the predominate source in Brazil), along with sugar beets, sorghum, switchgrass, wheat, cotton, and even the waste left over from harvesting (referred to as cellulose waste). While the production of ethanol from these other sources is in the research stage, commercial production of ethanol in the United States from corn is commonplace.