The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) extended the period for comments on its proposed regulations governing hydraulic fracturing. The deadline for written comments is now April 1, 2013, and the public hearing has been rescheduled to April 4, 2013.
Continue Reading Alaska Extends the Comment Period for its Fracking Regulations

We are pleased to announce that we have opened a satellite office in Washington, D.C. Our new address, effective immediately:

Stoel Rives LLP
1020 19th Street NW, Suite 375
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 398-1795 / Fax: (202) 621-6394

The new office is headed by firm partner Greg Jenner, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary

In the past two weeks, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have both indicated that they are reconsidering recent rulemaking activities related to hydraulic fracturing. Neither agency provided specifics on the potential revisions.
Continue Reading Federal Agencies Reconsider Fracking Regulations

In his State of the State address on January 16, 2013, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell called for the state to assume primacy for dredge and fill permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Two days later, on January 18, 2013, Governor Parnell introduced two bills – Senate Bill 27 and House Bill 78

On January 16, 2013, Alaska Governor Sean Parnell introduced proposed legislation that would significantly alter Alaska’s Oil and Gas Production Tax regime. The current law, known as Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share Act (“ACES”), was enacted in 2007 and is located in Alaska Statutes 43.55.011 et seq. This tax is levied on the net profits of oil and gas production from leases or properties in the state, except for the federal and state royalty share and oil and gas used in drilling or production operations. In this context, the term “net profits” is essentially the gross value at the point of production, also known as wellhead value (market price less transportation costs) less upstream operating and capital costs.

The tax that is levied on net profit per Btu equivalent barrel of oil and gas is the sum of (1) a base tax rate of 25% and (2) a progressive surcharge that is calculated on a monthly basis and starts at 0.4% for every $1 by which net profit per barrel exceeds $30, up to $92.50. For net profits over $92.50, the progressive surcharge equals the sum of 25% (0.4% times $62.50) plus 0.1% per every additional $1 of profit per barrel, up to a maximum progressive surcharge of 50%. Thus, the maximum total nominal tax rate is 75%. The tax rates under ACES, particularly the progressive surcharge, have been and will continue to be hotly debated.Continue Reading Proposed Alaska Oil and Gas Production Tax Bill Would Reduce Tax Rates, Alter Credits

On December 20, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) released proposed regulations governing hydraulic fracturing. The regulations would require AOGCC approval to conduct fracking activities. For comparison, California recently released a “discussion draft” of potential regulations which would impose certain requirements on fracking operations but would not require additional approval (see California Environmental

See the following posts in our California Environmental Law Blog to learn about efforts in California to regulate fracking at the state level:

Another Attempt at Fracking Disclosure Legislation in California (posted December 9)

DOGGR Releases Draft Fracking Rule (posted December 19)

The December 2011 amendment to 30 U.S.C. § 28f relating to the payment of annual maintenance fees for unpatented federal mining claims contains a glitch. As a result of a legislative drafting error, the owner of any lode claim located before August 10, 1993, arguably must now record in the local county (or recording

Via my colleague Erin Anderson:

Liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) exports will benefit the U.S. economy according to a NERA Economic Consulting study commissioned by the U.S. Energy Department (“DOE”). Posted on Wednesday, December 5, the two-part study concluded that the economic benefits of LNG export will outweigh the impact of potentially higher natural gas