Photo of Mike Mills

Mike Mills

Subscribe to Mike Mills's Posts

Mike Mills is an experienced environmental attorney who represents his clients in complex regulatory, compliance and litigation matters. His scientific background in environmental toxicology, as well as his contacts within California’s state regulatory agencies, make him ideally suited to provide effective and practical solutions to environmental, regulatory and sustainability challenges that his clients confront.

Mike is a former co-chair of the firm’s Energy and Natural Resources Industry Group, and his deep connections within California’s oil and gas industry span over two decades. Oil and gas clients appreciate Mike’s experience as they manage business growth and risks in the challenging regulatory environment in which they operate in California.

Click here for Mike Mills' full bio.

 

Follow:Read more about Mike MillsMichael's Linkedin Profile

On May 4, 2016, a coalition of environmental organizations (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection (“EPA”) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the EPA to promulgate revised regulations and guidelines for the disposal, storage, transportation, and handling of oil and gas wastes.  Environmental Integrity Project et al. v. Gina McCarthy (Case No. 1:16-cv-00842).  In the Complaint, Plaintiffs state that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) requires the EPA to review and revise regulations for drilling wastes every three years.  42 U.S.C. § 6912(b).  According to Plaintiffs, the EPA last conducted a review of the regulations in 1988, but has since failed to update the regulations.  Further, the EPA has not updated the guidelines for state solid waste management plans as required under RCRA.

The environmental organizations are the Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthworks, Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, West Virginia Surface Owners’ Rights Organization, and the Center for Health, Environment and Justice.
Continue Reading Environmentalists Sue EPA to Force Update of Drilling Waste Regulations

On May 2, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court issued opinions in two separate cases challenging local bans on hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”).  A win for the oil and gas industry in the state, the Supreme Court held that the challenged fracking bans were preempted by state law in both cases.  These decisions highlight the legal principle or doctrine of “preemption” – if  state law allows a process, like fracking, a local government is not permitted to ban or outlaw it.

In City of Fort Collins v. Colorado Oil and Gas Association (No. 15SC668, 2016), the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade association, sued the City of Fort Collins seeking a declaratory judgment that Fort Collins’ moratorium on fracking was preempted by state law.  In November 2013, the citizens of Fort Collins approved a citizen-initiated ordinance that placed a moratorium on “hydraulic fracturing and the storage of its waste products within the City of Fort Collins or on lands under its jurisdiction for a period of five years, without exemption or exception, in order to fully study the impacts of this process . . .”  Opinion, at 5.  In finding that the State of Colorado has an interest in regulating fracking, the court held that Fort Collins’ fracking moratorium “renders the state’s statutory and regulatory scheme superfluous” because it prevents oil and gas operators from complying with state law that permits and regulates fracking.  “In doing so, the moratorium materially impedes the effectuation of the state’s interest in the efficient and responsible development of oil and gas resources.”  Id. at 14.Continue Reading Colorado Court Strikes Down Local Fracking Bans that Conflict with State Law

The Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) recently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of environmental activists who have challenged the BLM’s Resource Management Plan (“RMP”) for public lands and minerals in California managed by the Bakersfield Field Office.  The activists asked a California federal judge to strike down the BLM’s RMP, claiming that the BLM never considered the effect of “unconventional drilling methods,” such as hydraulic fracturing on the land.

The BLM responded by pointing out that hydraulic fracturing is not a new, unproven technology and has been routinely used in California for over 50 years. It is estimated that only 25% of new wells in the Bakersfield planning area are expected to undergo hydraulic fracturing.  Furthermore, the BLM noted that 98% of new wells on federal mineral lands in the planning area are projected to be drilled on existing leases that have been producing for over 30 years and not on pristine, undisturbed lands.

The activists claimed that the BLM failed to take a “hard look” at the environmental impacts associated with fracking as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). However, any claim that the BLM did not comply with NEPA in developing the RMP is particularly weak under these facts.  The BLM developed a comprehensive, 1,000-page environmental impact statement (“EIS”).  Additionally, before issuing a final decision, BLM commissioned an independent review of well stimulation technologies in California to ensure that its EIS accurately reflected the potential impacts of fracking.  And finally, the independent review concluded that overall, the direct environmental impacts of well stimulation practice are relatively limited in California.
Continue Reading BLM Fights Back Against Activists’ Criticisms of CA Resource Management Plan

In one of the most sweeping proposals since the creation of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (“PHMSA”), the agency has announced proposed regulations to update requirements relating to gas gathering and transmission lines.  We find that there are four main areas our readers definitely should be aware of.

First, the proposed regulations would add new assessment and repair criteria for gas pipelines.  Most notably, the proposal will subject thousands of miles of pipelines built before 1970 to verification and testing requirements. These older pipelines had previously been exempt from such requirements.  This new requirement would mean that operators of older pipelines will need to make safety assessments on pipelines which were largely unregulated.  This may be challenging and costly for operators given the lack of records and age of many of these pipelines.

Second, the proposal also expands the agency’s definition of a “gathering line” that is subject to the new safety standards, potentially embracing pipelines previously classified as unregulated production lines. This is an expansive extension of federal authority into oil and gas production areas that have previously been regulated by individual state agencies and state law.
Continue Reading Proposed Rules Coming Down the Pipeline for Gas Gathering and Transmission Lines

Minerals are part of virtually all the products we use every day, acting as the raw materials for manufacturing processes or as the end products themselves. Not surprisingly, minerals also are used in the energy generation that we rely on every day.  Emerging energy technologies like wind, solar and nuclear heavily rely on minerals to…

On January 29, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to finalize the long-awaited “financial assurance” regulations under section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”).  The hard rock mining industry is first in line to be subject to  the new requirements.

The D.C. Circuit’s order is the result of a case brought by several environmental groups against the EPA seeking to force the EPA to put into effect the so-called “financial assurance regulations.”

In enacting CERCLA in 1980, Congress directed the EPA to ensure that companies remain financially capable of cleaning up contaminated sites. These financial assurance rules were intended to prevent companies from creating toxic sites and then becoming financially unable to clean them up, often causing the cleanup to be delayed for years.

In the intervening thirty years since CERCLA took effect, the EPA made little progress toward promulgating any financial assurance regulations, that is, until a court ruling in 2009 (brought by many of the same groups) ordered them to start. Pursuant to the 2009 ruling, the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register designating the hard rock mining industry as its priority for the development of financial responsibility requirements.  In making this determination, the EPA cited a heightened “risk” associated with hard rock mining which increases the likelihood of releases of hazardous substances.
Continue Reading Financial Assurance Requirements are on the Horizon for Hard Rock Miners

On Friday, January 22, 2016 the federal Department of the Interior’s (“DOI”) Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) issued a proposed rule on reducing waste and methane emissions in oil and gas operations.  The rule would limit oil and gas flaring, venting, and leaking on federal and Indian lands.  While the U.S. has become the largest natural gas producer in the world and U.S. oil production is at its highest level in nearly 30 years, the current regulations  hearken back to the mid-1980’s, when gas production and greenhouse gas concerns were very different than they are today.

The proposed rule is composed of “commonsense and cost-effective measures,” according to Janice Schneider, Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management.  Broadly, the proposed rule would require operators to adopt currently available technologies in order to limit the rate of flaring at oil wells, and would require operators to inspect for leaks and replace equipment that vents methane emissions into the air.Continue Reading BLM Proposes “Commonsense” Rule to Limit Methane Emissions from Oil & Gas Operations

Two lawsuits were filed within days of each other in Oklahoma, claiming that energy companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing and underground disposal of produced water are causing earthquakes throughout the state. These lawsuits probably come as no surprise to the industry after the Sierra Club recently threatened to sue four oil companies for contributing to increased earthquakes in Oklahoma and southern Kansas.

A pair of Oklahoma residents, in a class-action lawsuit, have accused four energy companies of causing “a dramatic increase” in earthquakes throughout the state during the last five years. The lawsuit names Sandridge Exploration and Production, Chesapeake Operating, Devon Energy Production Company, and New Dominion as the defendants.

The plaintiffs claim that hydraulic fracturing and underground disposal of produced water are causing earthquakes across the state by increasing the pore pressure within faults making the fault more prone to slip.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies are liable to the plaintiffs and the class for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and engaging in an ultra-hazardous activity. The plaintiffs are seeking not only compensatory damages, but also punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.
Continue Reading Two Frackquake Lawsuits Filed in Oklahoma

On Monday, November 2, the Sierra Club issued a Notice of Intent to Sue (“Notice”) four oil companies, alleging ongoing violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”).  Specifically, the Notice states that the injection and disposal of hydraulic fracturing waste fluids into the ground is a “past and present handling and disposal of Production Wastes in a manner that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment,” in violation of RCRA.  The Notice claims that fluid injection by oil companies, Sandridge Exploration and Production, New Dominion, Devon Energy Production Co. and Chesapeake Operating, is contributing to increased earthquakes in Oklahoma and southern Kansas.

This Notice follows a recent publication by the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”).  On October 20, the USGS released a report, A Century of Induced Earthquakes in Oklahoma?, that reviews the increased rate of seismicity in the central and eastern U.S. since 2009.  The report attempts to link industrial activity to the incidence of large earthquakes in the region.  As the Sierra Club Notice points out, the report states that injection of wastewater in deep disposal wells “potentially” induces earthquakes.  Additionally, a research letter published in October 2015 examined the two Cushing, Oklahoma earthquakes that occurred in October 2014, stating that a study of earthquake hazards and “its relationship to wastewater injection is important in order to understand potential damage to critical infrastructure in the region.”Continue Reading Sierra Club Issues Notice of Intent to Sue over Frackquakes in Oklahoma

About the Mineral Law Blog

Learn More

Here Stoel Rives shares insight and analysis about key mineral law developments. Drawing on a very active natural resources practice, we aim to keep readers informed about the legal aspects of news that impacts exploration and development of all things mineral.