Since our last update, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia has vacated the SEC's disclosure rules regarding government payments in connection with the development of oil, natural gas or minerals, and upheld the SEC's conflict minerals disclosure requirements. While we understand that the latter case will be appealed, companies that file periodic reports with the SEC should continue with their plans to comply with the conflict minerals requirements.
For more information, please read the full version of this alert.
The Sinclair decision, Larson v. Sinclair Transp. Co., 284 P.3d 42 (Colo. 2012), which held that oil pipeline companies do not have condemnation power under C.R.S. 38-5-105 prompted proposed legislation that would expressly give those companies that power by making amendments to C.R.S. 38-5-101 through 105. The proposed bill passed the state senate and was introduced to the Colorado House where the House Committee on Transportation and Energy postponed any further action on the bill indefinitely. While passing the bill would provide more clarity as to the rights of oil pipeline companies to exercise eminent domain power in Colorado, those companies may need to look elsewhere in Colorado law for that authority.
The Kansas Court of Appeals has recently issued several decisions potentially impacting production in several aspects throughout the state. Petitions for review by the Supreme Court have already been filed in most of these decisions:
For more information, please read the full version of the alert.
Total Producing Horizontal Wells****June 2012 - 47June 2013 - 202
* 2013 Baker Hughes Incorporated ** Kansas Corporation Commission, 2003 *** Colorado Conservation Commission **** Kansas Department of Commerce