EMLF On Demand Webinar: Recent Updates in Oil and Gas Development Law
About this Course
This course is approved for 2 hours of CLE credit in Kentucky, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. This course is approved for 2.4 hours of CLE credit in West Virginia. For other states, please contact anna@emlf.org.
This Course Has 2 Sections
  • Oil & Gas Covenants that Run with the Land
    Presenters: Leslie Boyle, Holland & Hart; Michael Brewster, Frost Brown Todd; Bruce Kramer, McGinnis Lochridge; and Matt Ochs, Holland & Hart

    The Sabine decision changed the way parties to oil and gas midstream contracts view dedication provisions, which have historically served as midstream providers’ mechanism to ensure recovery of significant capital expenditures in infrastructure development. This panel will discuss the findings of the Sabine decision, how dedication provisions have evolved, and recent court rulings governing the relationships between producers and their midstream providers.
  • Some Things Never Change -- Or Do They? Trespass Principles in the Modern Age of Oil and Gas Development
    Presenters: Katherine Gafner, Anthony Holtzman, K&L Gates

    Briggs v. Southwestern Energy, which involved a claim of a sub-surface trespass by hydraulic fracturing, was one of the most watched oil and gas cases in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with the industry, but what does the decision really mean? This presentation will include an overview of how courts have applied longstanding trespass principles in modern-day oil and gas development scenarios. The presenters will focus on the possible practical implications of Briggs and similar cases on future trespass claims. In doing so, they will consider questions like (i) whether, in every instance, the plaintiff will be able to make out a prima facie trespass claim and conduct discovery, (ii) whether the burden of showing the absence of a trespass has shifted to the producer, and (iii) whether compliance with spacing regulations provides the producer with protection if the plaintiff has not come up with affirmative proof of a physical trespass.
Get Started Now